In signing the recent Budget Act, Governor Brown used a line item veto to eliminate the requirement that the Judicial Council open its policy meetings to the public. The Alliance thanks Speaker John Perez for his leadership and courage in seeking greater transparency in our branch by including this language in the Budget Act. The veto followed vigorous lobbying against the measure by the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council and the AOC. In arguing in favor of the veto, the Chief Justice is reported as stating that the immediate provision should not become law as to the judiciary because “we are different.”
We are different only in performing our adjudicatory function in deciding cases and controversies. As to the expenditure of public funds we are not different, except that the decisions to spend that money are made by judges and bureaucrats who are not elected and who make many of their most important decisions in total secrecy.
There is talk of transparency and accountability, of a “culture change” within the Judicial Council, but until the voting judicial members of the Judicial Council are elected by their peers, true change is unlikely. The problem is systemic: only judges who have demonstrated a commitment to the status quo are appointed to voting positions. In advocating for this veto, the Judicial Council has chosen to ignore the dismal reputation it has garnered in the State Capitol.
The Alliance continues to advocate for democratic selection of the voting judges on the Judicial Council and a reassessment of branch priorities. Notwithstanding the $63 million added to the trial court budgets, the drastic cuts will continue — many courts, including some large ones, have not yet implemented all the reductions they need to make by July 2014. We continue to advocate for audits of the Judicial Council program budget, the Judicial Branch Facilities program budget, and the court construction funds.
At the request of staff of the Assembly, the Alliance provided our views on the need for the public access measure. The points we made are these:
- The Council has refused even to reveal the agendas for their yearly planning meetings, even after the meeting is held and even when the requests have come from judges. At these meetings of only those judges invited by the Chief Justice, long term plans are formulated that guide the actions of the Judicial Council for five years. The meetings are often run by highly paid “facilitators” hired by the AOC who can steer meeting participants toward the desired outcomes that later become the marching orders for the Council.
- Internal committees of the Judicial Council meet in absolute secrecy. The Executive and Planning Committee, which acts in place of the Council between meetings, enacted the Judicial Council Governance Policies less than four years ago without a vote of the Council and without any public circulation, all in violation of the stated policies then in effect. Had the meetings of the Executive and Planning Committee been open to the public, or at least to judges, this sleight of hand never could have taken place.
- All Council votes over a period of more than ten years were unanimous, with the exception of six votes. On those rare occasions, there were only one or two dissenters and the position favored by the AOC and Chief Justice was adopted. During this period of time, there were hundreds of votes. The Council decisions are usually made in advance at closed meetings and the actual Council votes are merely pro forma, as the virtual 100% unanimity proves.
- Judges and their courts are not represented on the Council. The Chief Justice appoints all of the judicial members of the Council and they are said to represent “the judiciary.” The decisions made, however, greatly affect the public and each and every judge and justice in the state. Rules of Court passed at these meetings have the force of law, yet the Rules Committee also meets in secret.
- The members of the various advisory committees and task forces of the Council are likewise all appointed by the Chief Justice. Each of these committees and task forces routinely meet in secret and their decisions are often preordained by AOC staffers assigned to each committee. The pressure to accept and support the favored position of the AOC and Chief Justice is stifling.
- In short, the system has the trappings of representation, openness and widespread participation, but in reality things are scripted and run by the Chief Justice and AOC. Their appointed Council is simply a rubber stamp, as are many of the “advisory” committees. It is critical that the actions of these unaccountable groups be subjected to greater scrutiny. At a minimum, the meetings must be open to any judge or justice who wishes to participate.
- CCMS is the model of the kind of mischief this system promotes. It was created in secret — there was never a vote of the Council to begin the project. It cost over $500 million dollars and destroyed our credibility with the Legislature and the Governor, as well as the public. It could not have bled the courts dry for as long as it did if the decisions that began the project, and later enhanced and prolonged it, had been subjected to public scrutiny. Instead, our appointed leaders aggressively lobbied to prevent an audit of the ill-fated project.
Finally, we include an article by Bill Girdner of the Courthouse News Service which reports on the Judicial Council’s adoption of e-filing rules that included a “poison pill” for public and media access, after being discussed and debated in secret. Mr. Girdner’s article reveals the depth of the public and legislative outrage that is being directed to the Judicial Council.
We do want to add one positive note: the Judicial Council has adopted a rule change that provides that the presiding judges will now elect their chair, who will serve as a nonvoting representative to the Judicial Council. Since our elected presiding judges have been afforded the right to select their own chairperson, the obvious question becomes: Why can’t all judges of this state also be trusted to elect representatives to the Judicial Council? The Chief Justice could immediately achieve democratic and transparent representation by simply agreeing to appoint the judicial members of the Judicial Council after a fair election by their peers. That would be real reform.
The Directors of the Alliance of California Judges
______________________________________________________________________________
Judicial Council Overrides Press Objections to New E-File Rules
By BILL GIRDNER
The Judicial Council on Friday overrode objections from California’s newspapers and open government groups that said a “definitional sleight of hand” had been slipped into proposed electronic filing rules with the apparent intent of delaying access to public records.
In adopting the objectionable rules by unanimous vote, the Judicial Council added on to a list of moves made by California’s court bureaucracy that are criticized by legislators for shutting the door to open government.
Those measures include a bill to tack a $10 fee onto every file request made by a journalist and anyone not a party to a case. The bill was proposed by the Judicial Council and shot down by the Legislature earlier this month, after Assembly member Bob Blumenfield lectured court administrators on wasteful spending.
The Legislature then included a provision in the state budget requiring the Judicial Council and its committees to open their meetings to the public. After lobbying by California’s Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Governor Jerry Brown on Thursday “blue penciled,” or eliminated, that transparency provision.
“The veto is a mistake,” said Blumenfield, the powerful chair of the Assembly budget committee. “The public has a right to know the decisions affecting access to justice and the inner workings of an entire branch of government.
In Friday’s vote, the Judicial Council adopted rules proposed by the council’s technology committee, rules that were debated and formulated in secret sessions, precisely the sessions that Blumenfield and the Legislature sought to open up.
The press groups objected to the proposed electronic filing rules because they could be ripe for exploitation by local court officials to delay access to court records until they are “officially filed,” meaning “processed and reviewed” by court workers, a series of bureaucratic tasks that can take weeks. By that time, the new cases are no longer news.
For the Los Angeles Times, Karlene Goller wrote to the council, “The suggestion that the public’s and press’ ability to access judicial records can be delayed until a document is deemed ‘officially filed’ is inconsistent with well established constitutional principles”
The press groups objecting to the rules’ tricky set of definitions included the Bay Area News Group, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, The Press Democrat Media Company, Courthouse News Service, Californians Aware and the First Amendment Coalition.
“The Judicial Council should not countenance the definitional sleight of hand when the public’s access to court records — a right that is fundamental to the transparency of the judicial branch of our government — is at issue,” wrote Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Roger Myers and Katherine Keating with Bryan Cave on behalf of the press groups.
The press comment added, “The proposed rule change would thus give court administrators unbridled discretion to delay press and public access to fundamentally public records until administrators decide such access is appropriate — even if it is days or weeks after the ‘filed’ date,” said the Bryan Cave lawyers.
On Friday, council members voted to adopt all the rule changes the press had warned about.
“They did not address our request to clarify the rules to say they are not designed to affect public access and the written response to the press groups continued to suggest the fundamentally unconstitutional notion that a new filing is not public until it’s processed,” said Matteo-Boehm.
The technology committee that proposed the e-filing rules is also the committee that pushed the now-defunct Court Case Management System, recently seeking to pour more money into the cumbersome software. The CCMS project cost the state a half-billion dollars before it was halted at the direction of California’s Legislature.
The two projects, CCMS and e-filing, are inextricably mixed in California. The two courts that are pushing e-filing, Orange County and San Diego, are among the very few California courts that adopted the controversial software.
In his testimony Friday before the Judicial Council, technology committee chair Justice Terence Bruiniers answered the criticism from the press saying, “The reality is that paper filings that come over the counter will sit on a desk in a back office waiting for a clerk to have the time to be able to review and file those and put them in the public record.”
Newly filed cases are indeed normally placed on a desk to be processed.
But journalists currently have access to the new actions on the day they are filed, in other words, delivered to the court, in many California courts, including the superior courts of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Fresno — and formerly in Orange County.
Bruiniers continued, “It is interesting that Orange County’s experience with mandatory e-filing indicates that some of the filings were turned around in under two hours — 22% of the filings. Most of their filings are completed within 24 hours.”
That statement is categorically at odds with the direct, daily experience of reporters in Orange County who review the new cases every court day.
When a case is electronically filed in that court, as determined by its file stamp, it is sorted into an electronic bin, not unlike paper filings that go to desks. A court worker must then process them, a set of tasks that in the cumbersome CCMS takes longer than processing a paper case in a simple case management system.
The time it takes for that processing varies tremendously.
Last week, it was taking roughly 72 hours or three days, said reporters covering the court. This week, the court has been catching up and, towards the end of the week, most of the cases were taking one day to show up.
“This is their pattern,” said Joanna Mendoza who reports on Orange County for Courthouse News. “They start falling behind and then somebody pays attention and they get caught up. From past experience, it will stay this way one or two weeks and it will slowly drift back to 48 hours.”
What reporters have been able to determine is that the time between when all the processing is completed and the time an image shows up on the court computer is roughly two hours, and that may be the statistic Bruiniers is referring to. But it masks the usual multi-day delay between when a case is filed with the court and when it can be seen by press and public.
Still referring to Orange County, Bruiniers said, “There is no distinction between internal or external users.” That statement is incorrect.
He added, “In other words, once they are filed, the media has access at the same time that any bench officer has access to those files.” That statement is correct.
Judges are not the only internal users. The staff has access to the new cases in the electronic bin where they are delivered. Court workers must have immediate access to newly filed cases in order to process them.
Journalists, including Courthouse News, have asked for access to that bin – an access provided to the press in state courts outside California — and Orange County’s clerk has refused.
Bruiniers continued, “So, e-filing would provide far greater and more convenient and more immediate access to these files than any of the courts that don’t have e-filing can currently provide.”
That statement is incorrect. It is in fact the other way around.
Courts that do require e-filing for some or all cases, San Diego and Orange County, generally delay press access from one to three days, sometimes longer.
In contrast, courts that do not permit e-filing, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno and Bakersfield, provide journalists with same-day access to the newly filed cases, on the day they cross the counter into the court, in other words, on the day they are filed.
Years ago, prior to electronic filing and other electronic processes such as scanning documents, Orange County also provided journalists with access to the new cases on the day they were filed, allowing for fresh news coverage of new legal disputes.
When the court began to delay access, journalists among the group of papers that covered the court, the L.A. Times, the Orange County Register, Courthouse News Service and City News Service, noted the immediate decline in coverage of new actions. Most reporters abandoned coverage of the new filings, as a result.
“We’re in the news business, not the history business,” said Milt Policzer, a journalist who has covered Los Angeles Superior Court for 30 years for a range of news organizations, including the Daily Journal and Courthouse News.
“News, in general, is supposed to be reported as promptly as possible for intelligent reaction,” he added. “We don’t want to learn that a dictator has been overthrown two days after it happened. Lawsuits may not be quite as dramatic, but if you have a stake in them, you’re going to want to know immediately.”
The rules adopted by the Judicial Council dance around the notion that the public record is not public until court officials deem it be — by scanning it, typing an electronic docket, or simply putting it in a stack on a desk, a set of procedures that take days in general and ironically much longer for some of the most newsworthy cases.
A survey of cases filed in Ventura, for example, showed that while delays on ordinary filings run from two days to one week, the delays on big cases, such as environmental challenges, a class action against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and water rights disputes, run to a month or more.
Ventura is another CCMS court, like Orange County and San Diego.
In their written comments objecting to the e-filing rules, the press groups said, “At best the proposed changes are confusing without serving any meaningful function. It appears the true purpose of introducing the concept of an ‘officially filed’ document into the Rules of Court is to provide the administrators with justification for denying public access to records that have been ‘filed,’ under the long-understood meaning of that term, until after they have been “officially filed.”
Specifically, rule 2.254(c) says, “An electronically filed document is a public document at the time it is filed unless it is sealed.”
But rule 2.250 (b)(7) amends the definition of electronic filing to say, “This definition concerns the activity of filing and does not include the processing and review of the document and its entry into the court records, which are necessary for the document to be officially filed.”
The definition for e-filing, rule 2.253(b)(1)(7) says, “Any document that is received electronically must be processed … to be filed as an official court record.”
In attacking those definitions inserted into the e-filing rules, the press groups said they were open to exploitation by local officials resisting public access.
“It appears the primary — and perhaps sole — purpose of the ‘officially filed’ concept is to justify arguments by court administrators that the public has no right to access a court record until court staff deem it fit for public viewing,” said the press comments.
“Rights fundamental to the democratic process — like the right to know what goes on in the courts — are meaningless if they can be disregarded when they become inconvenient,” their comment concluded. “As history has taught us, rushing forward without taking the time to assess how these systems will actually work for all concerned is quite likely to result in a system that is worse rather than better.”
Related articles
- The Arrogance of Unchecked Powers (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Governor endorses near secret JC deliberations of the publics business. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Alliance Budget Updates & Judge White speaks to legislators (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Budget increase will not stop court closures (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
courtflea
July 3, 2013
Everything said by ACJ is so true. I’d like to give an old but germaine example. A few years back the CEOs advisory committee met with Bill V and Ron O to discuss the composition of the committee. The group agreed to make some major changes to add more diversity to the committee, unanimously. Approval for the changes were set to go to the JC but the E&P in a closed meeting made the decision that it was not going to happen and the issue made by court leaders throughout the state about their own committee, never made it to the JC.Fuckers. And so insulting to the intellegence of those on the advisory committee, keep it up ACJ. It is going to take a lot to bust this organizational culture. Go get em.
Wendy Darling
July 3, 2013
The Chief Justice and her minions at 455 Golden Gate Avenue are “different” alright. But not in a good way.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
July 3, 2013
“The Council decisions are usually made in advance at closed meetings and the actual Council votes are merely pro forma, as the virtual 100% unanimity proves.”
I wondered if the judicial council meetings were following a script! Aha! What pure evil!
unionman575
July 3, 2013
Mark your calendars for 7-9-13 and 7-25-13…
Let’s show the AOC humps some love on 7-9-13…
Budget Committee to Discuss Trial Court Allocations
For release Contact: Teresa Ruano, 415-865-7740
July 3, 2013 Budget Committee to Discuss Trial Court Allocations Marks the first time the budget advisory committee will meet in public
SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council committee that will recommend how trial court funding should be allocated in the new fiscal year will meet in open session July 9, according to Sacramento Presiding Judge Laurie M. Earl and the Administrative Office of Courts Director of Fiscal Services Zlatko Theodorovic, co-chairs of the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee. The committee is scheduled to present its recommendations to the Judicial Council on July 25.
Currently, the chair of an advisory committee has the discretion of opening committee meetings to the public. “As chairs of this important committee,” Judge Earl said, “Mr. Theodorovic and I feel the process of deciding how taxpayer money will be distributed to the trial courts for the benefit of the public is an appropriate topic for an open meeting.”
Justice Douglas P. Miller, the chair of the Judicial Council’s Executive and Planning Committee, welcomed Judge Earl’s decision. “I appreciate Judge Earl’s initiative,” said Justice Miller. “We’re months away from developing a proposed rule on public access to appropriate committee meetings. I agree with Judge Earl that the upcoming budget meeting is indeed an appropriate one to open.”
The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 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.
😉
The OBT
July 4, 2013
Happy 4th of July everyone . Thanks to everyone here for helping bring democracy to the judicial branch of California.
courtflea
July 5, 2013
wearyant
July 5, 2013
Thank you, Courtflea, for posting the agenda for the upcoming JC meeting! 😀 I look forward to a listen on July 9 with my Kool-Aid, popcorn and barf bag nearby.
Recall The Tani! De-fund the AOC now! Long live the ACJ!
unionman575
July 6, 2013
The Kool-Aid is essential.
Be sure to drink some before, during, and after the show at the Star Chamber.
😉
unionman575
July 6, 2013
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3046.htm#acc14808
Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee
Next Meeting
Tuesday, July 9
10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
AOC San Francisco Office
Judicial Council Boardroom
wearyant
July 6, 2013
Thanks for posting, Unionman575. I remember Judge Wesley, one of the many members, as the lone voice in the JC wilderness … Then we have the highly paid pretty boy and several true-blue sycophants, plus the spies — I mean the “advisory” thugs. I wonder if all will attend. Are most of them scurrying about right now arranging scripts? 😉 All The Tani needs really is one spy; the others must be choreographers.
unionman575
July 6, 2013
😉
wearyant
July 6, 2013
😀 I’ll be ready only after a few Kool-Aid mixers with fine grain alcohol … God speed, J Earl and J Wesley.
wearyant
July 6, 2013
Come one, come all, to the continuing tragicomedy that rivals Shakespeare … bring your barf bags and buckets along with your opera glasses.
unionman575
July 6, 2013
Vodka Tonic here Ant.
😉
unionman575
July 7, 2013
As the world turns…
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/q-california+administrative+office+of+the+courts/l-san+mateo,+ca
Delilah
July 7, 2013
Wow, unionman, stunning.
Sr. Technical Project Lead
Senior Enterprise Architect
Senior Business Systems Analyst
Network Engineer
Sr. Software Engineer/Programmer
Sr. Enterprise Technology Architect
Sr. SAP ABAP Software Engineer/Programmer
Sr. Enterprise Technology Architect – Engineering & Systems Design job
Sr. Network Engineer – Server Admin & Security job
Business Systems Analyst
Maybe I’m just a simpleton, but shouldn’t someone perhaps promote internally from a “junior” to a “senior” job classification? Or is this similar to “directors” and “deputy directors,” just cuz everything is so cartoonishly overblown and “self-aggrandized” over there at the death star? And what is an Enterprise Technology Architect? Is Enterprise the name of some proprietary type of software program or something?
All I know is that, for every trial court employee “laid off,” new AOC recruitments seem to get their wings along with the salary of at least three of those laid-off workers, and the AOC seems to continue to expand in inverse proportion to courtroom closures/reductions. (See Exhibit A above).
The AOC/JC “leaders” have turned the AOC into a giant sucking parasite on the backs of the trial courts, too foolish and self-perpetuating to moderate their rapacious gorging before they suck the host dry or to the point of anemic ineffectualness. Access to justice is a nice tag-line, but it has nothing to do with their true mission. They care not one whit about access to justice for the unwashed masses. After all, really important people who have enough money don’t need to wait in line for anything or try to scrape up funds for filing/legals fees etc, and other trivialities of the common folk. They simply buy their own “justice” from their cronies without ever having to step foot in a courthouse. Ironic, since some of the bad actors up there should be appearing in court in handcuffs via sheriff’s transport.
unionman575
July 8, 2013
The rich get richer and we get zip…
unionman575
July 8, 2013
wearyant
July 8, 2013
PLEASE. Those who may have the power. De-fund the AOC. Democratize the JC. Dig the SEC report out of the trash can and implement every recommendation. The state auditor’s office must be persuaded to audit the JC/AOC in every infinitesimal detail! Anybody? HELP!
Long live the ACJ! Recall The Tani!
Those AOC job openings are just too much to bear …
Wendy Darling
July 8, 2013
Ah, the hypocrisy that flows from 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Published today, Monday, July 9, from Courthouse News Service, by Matt Reynolds:
Orange County, Calif., Slapped for Violating Public Record Rights
By MATT REYNOLDS
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The public should not have to pay a licensing fee to access electronic files of mapping information that local governments gathered, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/08/59175.htm
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
July 9, 2013
In tuning in to the finally “open” advisory committee, at 11:00 am it appears to be purely self-aggrandisement and self-accolades so far. I’m grateful for my barf bag nearby. Folks, cut the crap and get on with it! Please believe that patting yourselves on the back will get you nowhere as far as your credibility with the knowing, interested public and legislators.
Wendy Darling
July 9, 2013
They really are impressed with themselves, aren’t they, Ant?
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
July 9, 2013
Oh, Wendy Darling, I am so annoyed! I thought the judiciary was supposed to be nonpolitical. The Tani dropped by at the start of the “open” meeting too to politicize the atmosphere and pat herself on the back. At high, elitist altitudes, there is less oxygen in the air, isn’t there? And all this blather about data gathering, stats and how stats are necessary to form the methodology — rubbish! Too micromanaging, too much breathing down the necks of working people — EVERYONE who is laboring in any connection with the courts are picked apart and autopsied. Then tons of “stats” are feverishly gathered and hundreds of graphs, charts, etc., are prepared and analyzed. Surely this is all “make work” and unnecessary to the running of the branch. I get the idea every time a dependency lawyer or court clerk burps, it is made note of, analyzed, gathered as a statistic and becomes part of Zlatko’s methodology for the beginnings of God knows what.
PLEASE, people, can’t this ludicrousness be done away? Can’t the wheel-spinning be stopped? The California courts got through The Great Depression, for gawd sakes, somehow, without bureaucratic bobbleheads examining and reexamining all detritus from the supply of paperclips to number of bathroom breaks judges take. The JC/AOC must be line-item audited. All their unnecessary “make work” has to be stopped. The trial courts will excel without the AOC’s constant interference in minute-to-minute, day-to-day operations. The AOC must be defunded now! The Tani should be recalled as currently our justice system is pretty much in shambles under her “leadership.”
wearyant
July 9, 2013
Unbelievable! I’m worried about the air the JC/AOC/CJ Office breathes and the food they eat. Perhaps caviar is treated with deadly chemicals along with how Grey Goose becomes ready for retail sale. There will be yet another budget cost projection placeholder for the upcoming state budget for AOC augmentation! Outrageous! I suppose that’s why there are ads in the Wall Street Journal for even more California AOC FTE positions. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the unimaginable idiocy. Meanwhile there’s a continuing surplus in the subaccount for court interpreters, and the USDOJ is asking that the mandate that non-English speaking people be accorded interpreters in whatever their native language is from the time they are first called to court be followed. The surplus is minuscule in AOC’s eyes, only two to $3 million dollars, but it is there, and the AOC denies interpreter services to the public. The AOC should be defunded immediately. Wendy Darling is so right. They exist only to serve themselves, and the public be damned in their opinion. The JC/AOC/CJ Office continue to look disparagingly on the trial court judges, line workers and the public they serve. In the rude vernacular, they shit all over us.
wearyant
July 9, 2013
Didn’t the sheriffs manage to cut loose from the constricting budgeting under the AOC years ago? Remember when the US Marshals securing the courtrooms came to an end back in ’79? If I were an interpreter, I would find out how the sheriff is faring now budget-wise since they took over. I’d hear about how the sheriff would be cut from the civil courtroom to save money. Oh, yeah, brain-dead bureaucratic decision indeed, the domestics being the most dangerous to handle out in the street. It was a true saying, litigants in the civil court behave at their worst and those appearing in the criminal venue tend to behave at their best. Thankfully, the ca-ca brain bureaucrats didn’t mess around (too much) with security in the criminal courtrooms. Too bad the interpreters listened to the bullroar about how they’d be taken care of back around the time the “great” Ron George was making his move in the 90s. Some CEOs persuaded the interpreters to “go with the program” and how they would be taken care of — always. Now it appears funds allocated for interpreters are grabbed by the AOC. tsk tsk. Fucked without the romance. If only all the line workers in the courts would or could “bail out” from under the AOC clutches, all the clerks, judicial assistants, janitors, secretaries, research attorneys, etc., en masse and submit their own BCPs to the legislature bypassing the AOC. It would be so wonderful if the AOC could be left marooned on some desert island alone with no vegetation, no sailing vessel, nothing more than pebbles and sand surrounded by salt water and most of all, no more public money flowing in to them! Well, I can dream, can’t I?
unionman575
July 10, 2013
“Fucked without the romance”.
Yes indeed Ant.
😉
Wendy Darling
July 10, 2013
“Fucked without the romance.” There’s a word for that. It’s called rape.
And the California Judicial Branch has indeed been raped by those at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.