April 5, 2013
Dear Members and Others,Wednesday the Assembly Budget Subcommittee tasked with oversight of the judicial branch budget met. We attach a piece by reporter Cheryl Miller of The Recorder that details what occurred. The bottom line is that the legislative branch is done giving our current judicial regime a pass on its repeated instances of mismanagement, profligate spending and misplaced priorities which have resulted in a lack of access to justice in our local communities.
The Alliance applauds Assembly Budget Committee Chairman Bob Blumenfield for taking a courageous stand in support of the local courts and for attending this meeting even though he does not sit on this subcommittee. His presence and insightful observations confirm what Alliance board members have encountered at the Capitol in speaking with legislators — our leadership lacks credibility.
Continuing to insist that CCMS works and praising the architects of this failure in the recently delivered State of the Judiciary speech was not helpful. Arguing that the Long Beach Courthouse was a great deal is not helpful. Engaging in credibility contests with respected State Auditor Elaine Howle and the Legislative Analysts Office is not helpful and fails to make a strong case for entrusting the central bureaucracy with more public dollars.
In that regard we include a link to a new “fact sheet” apparently created by AOC staff in an attempt to blunt the type of criticism leveled at the Long Beach Courthouse debacle by Assemblyman Blumenfield. The document intentionally overlooks the elephant in the room — if, as the AOC claims, the Long Beach Courthouse is a wonderful deal, why was it necessary to abruptly put 11 other planned and much-needed courthouse projects on hold in order to finance it?
You may recall that “fact sheets” of this ilk were trotted out for CCMS and in opposition to AB 1208, the Trial Court Bill of Rights. We would strongly urge our branch leaders to cautiously reflect on the strategy they have apparently chosen. We would also urge our leaders to reach out to those in the branch who have differing views on these issues and consider a different path. The inescapable fact is that the judicial branch has been marginalized by these repeated failures and that does not bode well for those we serve.
Again, we will continue to keep you informed.
The Recorder’s LegalPad blogApril 03, 2013
BUDGET CHAIR SLAMS COURTS FOR ‘IRRESPONSIBLE’ SPENDING
[Cheryl Miller]
Wednesday’s hearing of the subcommittee overseeing California courts started off like so many others have -– with another sad recital of the suffering that years of budget cuts have brought to the judiciary.
And then Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield crashed the party.
Blumenfield, D-Van Nuys, is not a regular member of the Assembly budget subcommittee no. 5. He is, however, chairman of the full budget committee. So if he drops in on a subcommittee hearing, he’s going to get people’s attention. And that he did when he told the assembled leaders that their past decisions are not forgotten.
“While the state grappled with a budget crisis, court administrators sometimes have acted fiscally irresponsible even though fiscal responsibility was the mantra of the day, “ Blumenfield said. “We’ve seen a failed computer system with years of cost overruns and nearly $500 million wasted. In the process, the courts took millions from trial courts — sacrificing access to justice — to keep the failed computer project running. This year, the court system will likely enter an agreement and spend $100 million more than we should to build a new courthouse in Long Beach.”
Blumenfield said he isn’t pleased with Los Angeles County Superior Court’s decision to close courthouses and consolidate services either.
“The Legislature has acted to keep court budgeting stable through fees and other solutions,” he continued. “But the court’s requested increases demand an assessment of how responsibly existing budget levels have been used.”
Branch leaders, who didn’t respond to Blumenfield at Wednesday’s hearing, will surely argue that funding has been anything but stable with the significant loss of state general fund dollars. And they would say -– they have said -– that the chief justice and Judicial Council have turned a page on the spending decisions of the past.
But reading between the lines, the Assembly’s top budget official seemed to be saying that if the Legislature does restore any judicial funding, it’s going to come with some serious strings attached. What those conditions might be aren’t clear yet, but they’d probably include requirements that money be spent on increased trial court staffing and re-opened courthouses, things that labor would surely like to see, and not case management systems or electronic recording.
Blumenfield said he also wanted to hear more cost-saving ideas from the branch. “My only request is that your proposals focus on maintaining or improving access to justice,” he said.
The Directors of the Alliance of California Judges are pleased to announce the formation of our Ethics Committee. The panelists are among the most experienced judicial ethics advisors in the state. Two members of the Committee, Judge Julie Conger and Justice Tom Hollenhorst, received CJA’s Jefferson award for their contributions to judicial education, primarily in the area of ethics education. Both are past chairs of the CJA Ethics Committee where our third advisor and experienced ethics instructor, Judge Dodie Harman, also served. Justice Hollenhorst is the past chair of the CJER Governing Board.
This panel of experts will provide prompt, accurate ethics advice while assuring confidentiality. Each will poll the other committee members on all advice given to ensure committee consensus on any future action. Advice will be available to all judges, whether members of the Alliance or not.
Judges may contact committee members: Judge Dodie Harman, San Luis Obispo Superior Court, (805)781-5936; Judge Julie Conger, Alameda Superior Court Ret., sitting by assignment, (707)331-0993; Justice Thomas Hollenhorst, Fourth District Court of Appeal, (951)782-2627.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
_______________________________
From JCW-
As unionman so aptly pointed out, the AOC has released two controversial friday night blue light specials that should have everyone up in arms. The intent of a friday night blue light special from the Ministry of Truth & Public Enlightenment is to deter public and branch interest as well as press coverage – and it usually – but not always – works. We’ve seen these propaganda pieces called fact checks (link) before and much like the current one, it is what they omit that really matters.
What really matters is that this is the world’s most expensive courthouse.
The second blue light special apparently seeks to interfere with the first amendment rights of judges (link) by providing guidance on permissible speech. Given the creation of a new ACJ ethics committee, I’d be curious to get their take on this, wouldn’t you?
And what can we say about Bob Blumenfeld? Those astute observations are worthy of a journey to JCW’s hall of fame no?
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
April 6, 2013
More nice work JCW & ACJ.
😉
courtflea
April 6, 2013
qui on Blumenfeld.
Nathaniel Woodhull
April 6, 2013
This draft of the recent Fact Check memorandum was found in trash can on Golden Gate Avenue last Friday…
FACT CHECK
The new Long Beach court building will be completed this fall, providing a much-needed replacement for one of the worst courthouses in the state. By contracting with a private firm, the state was able to complete this large new court building on a fast track, without having to pay up front for design or construction.
Several recent reports have repeated misconceptions about the project.
Claim: The project is over budget.
The state’s maximum costs for the entire 35-year life of the agreement have been known since 2010, when the project agreement was approved and signed. The fact that you bozos in the Legislature didn’t read the agreement isn’t our problem.
The state will only begin payment on the new courthouse when it is finished and occupied. That will occur at the same time that CCMS is deployed statewide. The courthouse project is running under budget and ahead of schedule. Our code of ethics precludes of from providing you with the budget and scheduling information.
The state’s actual annual fee will depend on how well the building is run. Given out track record, the state will pay dearly for these operations. The maximum costs anticipated, that is our high, is lower you’re your low, so as you can see we have an expectation of predicable costs with a performance guarantee.
Claim: The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) concluded that the state paid $160 million too much for the building.
Not accurate. The LAO report focused on the facts when evaluating this project. They looked specifically at the value-for-money analysis. How fair is that? If you use real facts and a valid analysis process our claims will never be proven true and projects will never be approved.
Years after the project was approved, the AOC provided the LAO with some of the hidden underlying phoney assumptions we used in our calculations, which demonstrated to the LAO that the AOC had lied, cheated and stolen “by as much as $160 million in net present value terms.”
The LAO’s assessment is theoretical only. It assumes that we will actually do what we say. Remember, the “truth” is a relative concept; a mere “snapshot” in time. What is true now is not necessary true five minutes from now. The LAO’s evaluation focuses on of the project’s actual costs. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) maintains that the Long Beach analysis followed North Korea’s best industry practices and proved the project’s value for the state of confusion. The AOC believes it is premature to evaluate the project’s actual costs and intends to do a full analysis after the court has occupied the building for a couple of years. Remember, it is still to early to evaluate the effectiveness of CCMS. We must wait until it has been fully deployed and operational for a couple of year…
Claim: The courthouse will cost the state $2.3 billion.
This statement mischaracterizes the project’s cost, for three reasons:
1. The total project cost is for much more than the initial design and construction of the court building and the garage, which is costing about $2.3 billion. It is a service contract for the private party to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain the courthouse for 35 years. Hidden graft cannot be accurately calculated at this time.
A good analogy would be for an all-inclusive package deal for a brand-new house and a separate garage, in which the monthly mortgage payment covers not only the house itself and the cost of financing over 30 years, but also utilities and all repairs and maintenance, including life-cycle replacements for all appliances and things like carpeting, and even small purchases like lightbulbs, as well as upkeep such as landscaping and window-washing, to keep the house in top shape for 30 years. These operational expenses could easily exceed $5 billion.
2. These figures, which comes from adding up the maximum service fee payment for 35 years, makes no allowance for a basic economic principle: when paying a loan shark, you can never keep up with the juice, so don’t bother thinking about paying off the principal, It assumes that a dollar 30 years from now will be worth the same as a dollar was worth in 2048. The net present cost of the Long Beach project is somewhere in excess of $3 billion. The state owns the building throughout, but it will be turned over to the state in top condition at the end of the 35-year term.
3. I forgot what this one was..
Claim: The private partner bears no risk in this arrangement.
Inaccurate. Under the project agreement, the private project company bears the risk that the AOC will be eliminated by the Legislature. If that happens, they are in big trouble…
Wendy Darling
April 6, 2013
Here’s one thing you can say about Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield: He knows a bunch of bobble-head liars when he sees them.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
courtflea
April 6, 2013
thank you N. Woodhull for translating the BS into truthspeak. 🙂
wearyant
April 6, 2013
Thank you very much, General Woodhull, for the translation from BS (crapola) into truthspeak. I hope you didn’t injure your brain in this obviously painful and intrepid endeavor, but your sacrifice benefits all beleaguered California citizens and legislators who have been suffering under this North Korean type regime running the third branch for the last 16 years. We all benefit from your service.
JusticeCalifornia
April 6, 2013
Not to belabor the obvious, but “top leadership” has a real credibility problem.
A bona fide crisis of confidence.
As I recall one top legal newspaper made a 2013 tongue in cheek prediction that Sakauye would step down as cj this year, citing the budget crisis as the reason. . . .
Sometimes the greatest truths are told in jest.
In how many ways does Team George need to hear that no one is buying what they are selling? That it is really, truly time to fold up the Team George tent and go home? That the branch needs new, trusted, experienced leadership?
As Team George implodes. . . .and with an eye to ensuring the survival of the branch. . . ,
Forward-thinking, independent-minded members of the branch are encouraged to flood the Executive and Planning Committee with Judicial Council nominations/applications. . . .the deadline is April 12.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/4650.htm#acc5347
Lando
April 7, 2013
Sorry Justice the “Overlords ” at 455 Golden Gate will never , ever let a dissenter into the dark halls of the crystal palace. Their Soviet like regime of the last 16 years relies on total loyalty to their mission of complete control of the trial courts. They carefully screen and use their Advisory Committees as a testing ground to make sure they select only those who they can trust in preserving their own power. J Huffman perfected this approach and the more ” transparent” J Miller lol, has continued with it.
Judicial Council Watcher
April 7, 2013
This is indeed the way it works. You must demonstrate first that you’re a loyal team george player. If you’re not a team george player you’re going to find yourself stuck on an advisory committee.
Scout Finch
April 7, 2013
Or not even “stuck” there JCW. Justice Miller will be sure that dissenting voices are held back from the Judicial Council and its subcommittees and he will use the shroud of E & P secrecy to prevent moving legitimate nominees forward. Jahr carried water for former Chief George, but unlike Huffman, the naive among us actually thought Jahr was nice. That’s his cover. Same thing with Miller. Kids like me aren’t fooled by grownups who pretend to be good while meanness lurks inside.
Tanya Sweethouse
April 7, 2013
The Overlords kicked off Alliance Judge Fisher after she had served just one year on the Accountability and Efficiency Committee. The Soviet Regime with Jahr at the helm surrounded by his team of loyalists couldn’t handle her “no” votes, her requests for information and her challenges to General Counsel Mary Roberts. Tani appointed Fisher to media acclaim as evidence of a changed regime and later quietly threw her off when Mattock, Huffman and other AOC insiders started feeling the heat. When the Mockingbird sings you never know what is real but when you kill the Mockingbird, will the true song emerge?
Judicial Council Watcher
April 7, 2013
Very much off-topic: A few years ago a 70 year old San Francisco woman was sued because it was alleged that she downloaded copyrighted porn via a bit torrent (file sharing software).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/grandmother-sued-downloading-porn_n_900484.html
Much like the recording industry association of america started filing suits for making music available for download, it appears an obscure law firm from the midwest was beginning to file suit against individuals for making copyrighted porn available for download. Unlike a suit for downloading music, being named in a lawsuit for downloading illegal porn carries with it a stigma that one might be a pervert and it is a relatively short walk from being a pervert sued for downloading illegal porn and a pervert related to any other cause of action, not to mention the embarrassment of actually going to court over it
The law firm behind the shakedown lawsuit against grandma was a firm named Steele Hansmeier PLLC which has changed their dba to Prenda Law. Apparently in their past they had actually represented porn producers. Now it appears increasingly likely that they represent themselves.
This copyright troll law firm is currently experiencing an extinction event, courtesy of some bloggers, sharp attorneys who read blogs and a concerned federal judge here in California.
It’s appearing increasingly likely that the law firm may have dummied up the clients they currently represent and may have been involved in seeding the torrents (ie making available for download the porn) that they later sued people over.
Come taste from my honeypot so I can sue you.
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=prenda+law
http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/
http://dietrolldie.com/
Moral of the story: If your movie dismally fails at the box office, release it on bittorrent and hire a lawyer to sue anyone who downloads it. At up to 150K per download, it’s a lot better money than a 9 dollar box office ticket.
Or not. Because you might get caught.
Back to our normally scheduled,on topic thread…