After hearing rumors about a rental in San Francisco being used by AOC leadership one of our media partners crafted a public information request and submitted it to pubinfo. Knowing that it wasn’t likely that the rental was an AOC line item, the author instead thought through the AOC travel expense claim process and surmised that if the expense was to be registered anywhere on behalf of judicial branch leadership, it would most likely be registered as a reimbursable expense.
The author of the request reasoned that because the top four all maintained Sacramento area residences and San Francisco is downright expensive to live with studios going for upwards of two grand a month that leadership might have reasoned that a rental in the city is what they believe they may be entitled to in lieu of relocating closer to their jobs.
After all, nobody questions AOC leadership on their decisions if they desire to stay employed. But the condo rumor is persistent, fast and furious at the crystal palace so instead of questioning leadership directly about it and take a chance on losing their jobs, it is being communicated to us via the private message window (link) and it is being communicated to others outside of the AOC.
Many AOC’ers commute as far as 300 miles a day to and from work and are not reimbursed for their commutes. They are also not entitled to stay in a hotel room just because they have to be at work early the next day or had to work late at night. They’ve grown weary of the self-dealing management that carves out double standards for themselves out of a sense of entitlement. So it’s no surprise that quite a few AOC’ers might be miffed at watching the trial courts crumble under current AOC leadership because of perceived self-dealing and double standards.
The author requested 3 months of travel expense claims covering Jahr, Patel, Soderlund and Child between March and May of 2013 additionally requesting any document that would reflect reimbursement on any habitable dwelling being paid for directly by the AOC. The AOC’s response to this request was that they had no record of paying for a habitable dwelling. A few days later they responded to the travel expense claims request.
The author was requesting copies of three months worth of travel expense claims for 4 individuals. 3×4=12 copies.
The AOC responded that they estimate that they can produce those 12 copies of travel expense claims by September 27th, 2013. We’ll keep you apprised on any changes we learn about regarding any habitable dwelling being reimbursed via the AOC but if you happen to have any firsthand knowledge the AOC rumor mill tends to be far more accurate than leadership gives it credit for.
Contact us via the private, anonymous and secure message window (link). Just don’t do so from work because various entities set proxy appliances to alert them when you visit us – and our private message window.
++++++++++++++++++
A few years ago the AOC went from AOC wide meetings to divisional meetings to communicate with AOC employees directly. After a few meetings where leadership was presented with some embarrassing questions in AOC-wide meetings that they refused to address and deferred to others, a decision was made to break up AOC wide meetings to meetings by division so that if a troubling question were asked, the whole AOC wouldn’t be poisoned by the lack of response. It would be isolated to the division level and only that well would be poisoned, not the whole AOC. Since the AOC would prefer all inter-divisional communications to flow up the chain of command and across to other divisions they believed that employees from different divisions don’t talk to each other. It is dysfunctional in both practice and belief.
Related articles
- Can We Get A Straight Answer? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- AOC: We’re cutting expenses, we just can’t prove it. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- About the “Reality Check” barometer…. (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
Judicial Council Watcher 
R. Campomadera
July 26, 2013
Days to concoct the lies, deceptions, omissions, and obfuscations: 59
Days to provide copies of the results: 1
*edited by jcw
unionman575
July 26, 2013
http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/riverside/riverside-headlines-index/20130726-inland-courts-will-have-another-tight-money-year.ece
INLAND: Courts will have another tight-money year
BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY
STAFF WRITER
Published: July 26, 2013; 03:42 PM
Recession era-funding has forced San Bernardino and Riverside county courts to shut courtrooms and drop hundreds of full-time jobs over the past four years, even as the gap widened between the number of judges and the soaring Inland population.
This fiscal year brought a small increase in money when Sacramento, after years of cuts, restored $60 million to the statewide court funds, and a new formulation was used for how that money is divided that is more favorable to Inland counties. But the amount is not enough to reverse cuts in personnel and services that will continue for the coming fiscal year, court executives in both counties said.
Under a fiscal plan devised by the Administrative Office of the Courts based in San Francisco, local courts next fiscal year will see the end to virtually all their reserve funds, which will be incorporated into statewide court funding. For courts such as San Bernardino County, which still has $17 million in reserves, “That means we have one year to become more efficient,” said Stephen Nash, court executive officer.
In the past year alone, San Bernardino County Superior Court has closed courts in Twin Peaks, Big Bear and Needles. The courthouse in Barstow was scheduled for shutdown, but emergency funds kept one courtroom open three days a week. Riverside County Superior Court recently reduced services at its Temecula court and dropped operating days at the Blythe court from five weekdays to three.
Riverside County on July 19 changed its traffic-court clerk availability. No longer can people casually walk up to waiting clerks at a traffic–ticket window. In-person meetings with clerks are now by appointment only, and there are no live telephone operators available for traffic cases. The 15-minute clerk appointments are made online, either from home or computers available in courthouse lobbies.
Almost all traffic ticket matters other than trial can be handled by visiting the court’s website or at kiosk locations, said Sherri Carter, court executive officer.
“BARE BONES”
“We are under a new reality,” Carter said. “We are encouraging people to do as much from home as we can.”
She said the reduction in court staff — about 230 full-time positions dropped since 2008, when the court had 1,256 full-time positions — is one factor driving the paring of services. More cuts in staff positions are projected for this year.
Fourteen court reporters were let go this year. The reporters, who type the transcript record of proceedings on stenotype machines, now have a primary courtroom assignment but will be available for other courtrooms through a pool. They previously were assigned only to one courtroom, Carter explained.
“It has been painful. It involved a lot of people,” Carter said. “We are absolutely at bare bones.”
A spokesman for the union representing Riverside County court workers said it could have been worse.
“We did lessen the impact by convincing the court to keep more jobs and preserve more services than they wanted to,” said Ian Thompson, of SEIU Local 721.
“Our main priority now is fixing the problem at its source. We need to get Sacramento to allocate more funding for our courts in Riverside County and across California,” Thompson said in an email.
The cuts became necessary, Carter said, as the court saw its budget drop from $169.1 million in fiscal year 2008-09 to $128 million for the current year. State funding, the largest among the court’s funding sources, has dropped from a high of $81.3 million in 2009 to $64 million this year. The court’s reserve funds were largely used up during the past year. Riverside County courts were facing a $13.9 million deficit, Carter said.
But $5.2 million from the combination of restored state money and the state’s new funding formula, plus workforce and court service reductions and economizing moves such as the changes for traffic ticket management means the court likely will have a balanced budget, Carter said.
“AN HOUR’S DRIVE”
San Bernardino County courts have undergone a similar slide over the past several years and began closing courts starting in 2009, when the Redlands facility was shut down. Nash, the court executive officer, said that despite the closures and reduction in workforce of about 220 positions since July 2011, San Bernardino County courts still face a projected deficit of $6 million this year.
Nash said that deficit forecast is down from $11.3 million. The combined infusion of the new state money and assessment formula put $6.6 million of new money into the San Bernardino County court budget, helping to cut the forecast deficit in half, he said. The projected budget for this fiscal year is $103 million, while anticipated revenues are $97.1 million.
While San Bernardino County courts have $17 million in reserve to help offset its deficit, administrators also want to restore some basic services for the closed courts in Needles and Big Bear and develop self-help programs for court users who can’t afford attorneys.
“It’s just real inconvenient,” said Melissa Tangeman, 37, who said she is a lifelong Big Bear resident and the baker at Thelma’s Restaurant and Bakery in the mountain town. “We have to either go to the (downtown) San Bernardino court, which is insanely crowded, or to Victorville. And both ways are an hour’s drive to get there.”
Between driving time and waits to get court business done, “we have to spend the entire day. And in the wintertime we have to drive through the snow. You can imagine what that’s like. It’s ridiculous.”
Nash emphasized there would be no effort to use up the $17 million reserve money before next fiscal year, when the system of large backup funds ends for local courts.
“We do not intend to spend money just to spend money,” Nash said. “We have to become more efficient. Our goal is not to close any more courts, and we are looking at all options to come up with solutions.”
The Inland counties remain the most under-staffed for judges in California.
In a 2012 assessment, the state Judicial Council said San Bernardino County needed 65 more judges, and Riverside County needed 55 additional jurists to handle their caseloads. Each county now has more than 2 million people, but the Legislature has not funded judgeships already authorized for both counties.
unionman575
July 27, 2013
You would think with that high tech “Ferrari” parked in the AOC “garage” that they could make 12 copies. But, alas, just more bullshit from the Death Star.
Here is some recommended reading…
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/preschooler-lying-and-honesty
😉
unionman575
July 27, 2013
http://sfappeal.com/2013/07/ca-courts-approve-1-6-billion-in-funding-sf-to-lose-as-much-as-700000-under-new-plan/
CA COURTS APPROVE $1.6 BILLION IN FUNDING, SF TO LOSE AS MUCH AS $700,000 UNDER NEW PLAN
by Bay City News | July 26, 2013 3:40 am | in
The governing body of California courts approved a $1.6 billion allocation of baseline funding for the state’s trial courts on Thursday, using the first phase of a new formula for dividing up scarce funds.
The allocation of operating funds for the 58 county-based superior courts is for the 2013-14 fiscal year, which began July 1, and was adopted by the state Judicial Council at a meeting in San Francisco.
The $1.6 billion is about two-thirds of this year’s total funding of $2.5 billion for the trial courts, which have sustained deep financial cuts during several years of state budget crises.
The remainder of the trials courts’ total budget comes from separate state allocations to pay for items such as interpreters, jury costs and court-appointed lawyers for children.
The baseline funding includes $60 million restored to trial court budget by the Legislature in May.
But the restored amount, which court system chief fiscal officer Zlatko Theodorovic described as “a drop in the bucket” at one point in the meeting, still leaves the superior courts $201 million short of the amount received last year, on top of previous cuts of $214 million.
The new allocation formula, developed by an advisory committee of judges and court executives, takes account of varying court workloads that may have changed in recent years because of population growth or other factors.
The previous formula, used for the past 15 years, was based primarily on the share each superior court had in 1998, the year the state government took over court funding from the individual counties. That approach didn’t keep up with increased court workloads in counties where the population grew faster.
The new method is being phased in slowly. For this year, the council applied it to 10 percent of the baseline funding. Another 10 percent will be added each year for the next four years until the new formula is used to allocate half of the funding, while the previous formula will be applied to the other half.
Any new funding provided by the Legislature will also be divided up according to the new formula. The $60 million granted in May is considered new funding, and so that amount was also allocated according to the new formula.
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who chairs the council, described the new formula “as a more equitable distribution model” for the trial courts.
“How our limited funding is allocated affects every court and every court user, as up and down our state we continue to see courthouse closures, reduced hours, and staff layoffs and furloughs,” Cantil-Sakauye said in a statement.
Although all county superior courts will receive less money than last year, some will incur greater and others smaller reductions as a result of the new formula.
Within the Bay Area, the Contra Costa, Monterey, Solano and Sonoma county superior courts will receive slightly more funding than they would have under the old formula.
The gains range from $43,000 for Contra Costa County Superior Court, out of total baseline funding of $35 million, to $103,000 for the Solano County Superior Court, out of a total baseline funding of $17 million.
County superior courts that will have greater reductions than they would have had under the previous formula include Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.
Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara will each lose between $500,000 and $700,000 under the first phase of the new formula.
The total current allocations for those three superior courts are $73 million, $54 million and $74 million, respectively.
The Judicial Council is made up of 15 judges, four lawyers and two legislators.
Julia Cheever, Bay City News
😉
unionman575
July 27, 2013
http://tcf.org/blog/detail/the-new-sick-onomy
😉
courtflea
July 27, 2013
well we can most certainly say that these 4 are not having slumber parties in the City so it will be interesting to find out where they are staying. maybe we will be suprised and find that they are telecommuting! 🙂
unionman575
July 28, 2013
It is apartment time baby!
I am sure OERS won’t like it either…
unionman575
July 28, 2013
http://www.law360.com/articles/459915/courthouse-budget-cuts-spell-headaches-for-la-attorneys
😉
unionman575
July 28, 2013
http://banning-beaumont.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/traffic-ticket-questions–youll-have-to-go-to-court-for-that
Traffic Ticket Questions? You’ll Have to Go to Court for That
Budget cuts have forced Riverside County traffic courts to reduce their services, including answering the phone.
Posted by Renee Schiavone (Editor) , July 22, 2013 at 02:42 PM
Litigants in traffic cases will no longer be able to reach a Riverside County Superior Court clerk via telephone and will have limited opportunities to interact with court personnel prior to a hearing because of budget constraints, court officials said recently.
“Due to several consecutive years of state budget reductions, the court is forced to reduce the services that it can provide to the public,” Superior Court Executive Officer Sherri Carter said in a statement issued Friday. “The court is automating many routine tasks through available computers, kiosks and telephones.”
According to Carter, individuals contesting an alleged infraction and attempting to get answers to questions about how to proceed, will not be able to speak with court personnel via phone but will instead have to make an appointment for a face-to-face meeting at any of the following locations:
• Banning Courthouse
• Blythe Courthouse
• Hemet Courthouse
• Larson Justice Center in Indio
• Moreno Valley Court complex
• Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta
Appointments can be made at the following website:
http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/traffic/scheduleappt.shtml .
Carter noted that an appointment does not constitute a hearing or a deferral of obligations
to pay bail or make an appearance.
“Same-day court appearances are no longer offered in any traffic court location,” she said.
Carter reminded defendants that they can pay fines, request extensions or take care of most other routine traffic-related matter online at http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/ .
Last month, Riverside County Presiding Judge Mark Cope said the 2013-14 fiscal year would pose ongoing challenges for the entire court system, requiring layoffs and curtailing of operations.
“Because the restoration of funding is not sufficient to cover operational expenses, additional staff reductions affecting every division in the Riverside County Superior Court will still be necessary,” Cope said in a statement. “This will involve positions in operations, management, administration, legal, human resources and information technology.”
The state budget signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on June 27 returned $60 million of the roughly $500-plus-million gouged out of state court operations since 2008 as California wrestled with billions in red ink. According to Cope, the infusion translates to roughly $5.3 million more in the local court budget for fiscal 2013-14. However, aggregate budget cuts over the last five years total $20 million.
There were plans to completely shut down the Blythe and Temecula courthouses, but Superior Court officials backed off the idea and instead implemented an alternative plan that has slashed hours of operation at both locations.
— Reported by City News Service
😉
Helicopter Tours – Tours of Southern California
http://www.corporatehelicopters.com/
Call us for a quote!
unionman575
July 28, 2013
https://careers.jud.ca.gov/psc/recruit1/EMPLOYEE/PSFT_HR/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.HC_HRS_CE_GBL2&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%2cIsFolder&
unionman575
July 28, 2013
I finally found a way to merge my dislike of the Long Beach courthouse project and my favorite beverage (Vodka)….
Cheers!
http://oxblue.com/open/clarkconstruction/longbeachcourtbuilding
http://www.diffordsguide.com/cocktails/recipe/2088/white-elephant
Wendy Darling
July 29, 2013
455 Golden Gate Avenue gets another free pass for breaking the law. Published today, Monday, July 29, from the Metropolitan Press Enterprise, by Kenneth Ofgang.
And a note to “Judge” Halpin: it is you who have utter contempt for the judiciary, as evidenced by your willingness to sit on the superior court bench for almost 20 years in Shasta County without ever once being elected to that position in all that time.
A.G. Declines to Enter Dispute Over Retired Judge Assignments
By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Attorney General Kamala Harris has denied a Shasta County man leave to bring a quo warranto action challenging the longstanding practice of granting multiple consecutive trial court assignments to certain retired judges.
In an opinion that avoids the merits of Charles Wagner’s constitutional and policy arguments, the attorney general said the issue was moot because the chief justice has ordered that the object of Wagner’s ire—retired Shasta Superior Court Judge Jack Halpin—no longer sits by assignment.
Multiple Assignments
In applying for quo warranto, Wagner—an elderly man who had a family law cases in front of Halpin—also attacked the general practices of granting multiple or consecutive assignments of a particular judge to a particular court, of assigning retired judges without a finding of exigent circumstances, and of issuing orders that allow a retired judge to return to complete work on cases heard during the period of an assignment that has otherwise expired.
By Wagner’s count, Halpin, who returned to work on assignment more than three decades after leaving the bench to join the state executive branch, was assigned to the Shasta court by 208 separate orders over an 18-year period.
But the attorney general, in her opinion Thursday, said quo warranto is not the appropriate remedy to attack the chief justice’s exercise of constitutional powers.
Quo warranto is generally the sole means by which a court may oust an individual alleged to be holding public office illegally. It may be sought by a private party who seeks leave from the attorney general to file the action, or the attorney general may file it directly.
Wagner’s contention that the challenged practices violate the constitutional requirements that superior court judges be elected in their respective counties, and that they serve six-year terms, does not amount to a claim of usurpation of public office, the attorney general said.
It is, she explained, essentially a claim that the chief justice has exercised her powers in an ulta vires manner.
“We find no basis in [statute] or in any judicial decision for the invocation of a quo warranto action in connection with the issues presented…and we have not considered quo warranto to be the proper vehicle for challenging the legality of the actions of legitimate state officers under the type of circumstances presented here.”
Other Possibilities
The attorney general, for whom the opinion was prepared by Deputy Attorney General Diane Eisenberg, noted that the denial of leave to sue in quo warranto does not preclude Wagner from bringing another form of action to challenge the way the chief justice, the Judicial Council, and the Administrative Office of the Courts handle assignment orders.
Halpin, according to a story in the Redding newspaper, the Record Searchlight, was appointed to the court in 1962 by then-Gov. Pat Brown, but left two years later to join Brown’s administration as deputy finance director. He was later promoted to chief deputy director, but left in 1965 to run for the state Senate.
He lost that contest to Republican Fred Marler, later a Sacramento Superior Court judge, Third District Court of Appeal justice, and president of the California Judges Association.
Halpin subsequently practiced law in California, Hawaii, and New York, but became an inactive State Bar member in 1991. He began accepting assignments to the court in 1994, and continued to serve until last year.
The last assignment order, the attorney general explained in her opinion Thursday, was made in late 2011. But Halpin returned to the court to hear matters in several cases, including the Wagner case, that he had been working on prior to that order.
Disqualification Motion
Wagner contended that such continued service was illegal, and also challenged the judge under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.1. Halpin did not contest that motion within the required 10 days, and it was granted by operation of law.
The chief justice’s order of Dec. 18 of last year, filed after the 170.1 challenge was filed but before it was granted, stated that Halpin “shall have no authority, by virtue of assignment by the Chief Justice, to hear any case, cause, or matter in the Superior Court of Shasta County.”
In an email to the MetNews Friday, Halpin said he believed the order “was motivated by a desire on the part of the AOC to avoid dealing with the merits of the quo warranto proceeding at my expense.”
He provided a copy of a memo he sent to Shasta judges at the time, in which he said he had been “unfairly treated by the AOC,” and that “[the] AOC and the Chief Justice have failed to support me in the face of vicious attacks by individuals and entities who have utter contempt for the judiciary,” including “the blogs of Judicial Watch, Barbara Kauffman, and others.”
Kauffman is a Mt. Shasta attorney who represented Wagner in the application for quo warranto.
Kauffman told the MetNews that Halpin, who is in his late 80s, was viewed by many parents who had custody cases in front of him as unfit for the bench. She said she did not know whether she would take the type of legal action suggested in the opinion.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
July 29, 2013
Good old Teflon Jack…
Judicial Council Watcher
July 29, 2013
We have utter contempt for the judiciary? That’s news to us. We thought we were trying to save the judiciary.
unionman575
July 29, 2013
We are.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
July 29, 2013
I actually like the AG opinion. Especially page 15 paragraph 2. It gives direction to those who believe the CJ, JC, and AOC are exceeding their powers. Directly name them in a lawsuit and sue them.
JC
Delilah
July 29, 2013
Just another entry for the AOC/JC dictionary, courtesy of a “judge” who is not really a judge, Jack Halpin: Down = Up, Wrong = Right, Less = More, Dark = Light, Obfuscation = Transparency, Closed courthouses = Access to Justice, Reckless Spending = Good Stewardship, Shit = Gold. etc, etc., etc.
Genuine concern for the CA judiciary = Contempt for same.
They are predictable and consistent.
Delilah
July 29, 2013
At this point it doesn’t surprise me at all that Kamala Harris refuses to take any type of action “against” the AOC, continually finding “justification” for her office’s refusal to do a thing about anything. And I mean Any. One. Thing.
But now for the really important stuff, guys. More progress on a new Justice Center! Oh, thank god! If we just keep building new courthouses and “justice centers,” all will be well.
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20130729/NEWS01/307290001/A-new-justice-center?nclick_check=1
“There was not adequate space and courtrooms [in the current courthouse] to accommodate the number of court users. There was congestion in the hallways. Often, victims, defendants and witnesses could be in the hallways together — often shoulder to shoulder,” said Deanna Jasso, administrative manager for the Tulare County Superior Court.”
Given the fact that the new building probably won’t be staffed with adequate court employees, the “court users” should have even more room to mill around in the hallways outside closed courtrooms and also have more elbow room while they’re standing in line at the clerks windows. Ain’t it all so grand? The AOC/JC have always been so clear and unwavering in demonstrating where their priorities lie. Perhaps with the CA building trade associations? Cuz it’s clearly not with its own trial court employees and/or the public they serve. Twisted.
courtflea
July 29, 2013
why should Kamala do anything? Vanity Fair this month had a half full page picture of her and a small article about her. She obviously thinks she is destined for greater things and does not want to make hay on her way there. Chicken shit rules in the political arena.
Wendy Darling
July 29, 2013
Branch “leadership” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue openly brags that they are “Teflon” – that no one in any of position of authority can touch them or hold them accountable, so they can just do what they want. And this latest demonstration from the AG just show once again how true this is.
Long live the ACJ.
R. Campomadera
July 30, 2013
Too bad there are no recordings of such outrageous statements…this is just the sort of utterance that gets the attention of Inspectors General…sort of like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
Why on earth would you say something like that if you weren’t doing things that are wrong and for which you would, in any normal organization, be held liable??
By the way, that’s a rhetorical question. I know the answer.
Judicial Council Watcher
July 30, 2013
Actually there is a “We’re above the law” smoking gun email from AOC’s construction leadership posted on this site that should have sent up a whole fireworks display.
Unfortunately. the equivalent of the IG in the judicial branch is a guy named John Judnick and he isn’t about to do anything to allay any concern regarding fraud, waste and abuse.
It’s his job to cover it up and give plausible deniability to AOC and Judicial Council leadership so they can say “We didn’t know…..we weren’t aware…. it wasn’t reported to us”
Wendy Darling
July 30, 2013
“Too bad there are no recordings of such outrageous statements.”
Actually, R. Campomadera, there have been recordings of such statements. Even video with audio. But the only thing that happens when those recordings get turned over or exposed, is the employee gets fired. Just ask Uzoma Okoro (if you don’t know who he is, see the JCW Hall of Fame). What happens to branch administration? Well, that would be nothing.
Delilah
July 29, 2013
Yes, indeedy, flea. Once again, ain’t it all so grand?
The OBT
July 30, 2013
The sad reality is that Judge Halpin should have never been allowed by HRH-1 and HRH-2 to serve as long as he did in the same place and act in the same capacity as an ” elected” judge. It is also sad that he feels it necessary to attack the attorney, Ms Kauffman , who had the courage to raise the issue of his ” unelected ” status. Going back to an earlier issue,can someone shed any more specific light on the AOC owning a condo or apartment presumably in San Francisco ? Would anyone be able to provide a clue as to said condos purpose and how it was paid for? The other issue I am interested in is the Shapiro fund. Is it still being used by the ” insiders ” at 455 Golden Gate and for what ? If not where did it go ? Thanks to all here for any help on those questions.
Wendy Darling
July 30, 2013
What does it matter about the condo, OBT? It’s not like anybody is going to do anything about it, or about anything else for that matter.
The OBT
July 30, 2013
Wendy I agree that the ” insiders ” at 455 Golden Gate appear to think they are above it all. Their arrogance is beyond belief. Maybe I am being too optimistic but I believe their house of cards could be about to collapse. Many in Sacramento are on to the failings of HRH-2 and Hull’s arrogance in dealing with legitimate public information requests is not helping them in any way. Hard evidence about these arrogant and out of touch public officials spending valuable taxpayer dollars on a condo for themselves, if true , would be significant in the case for defunding the Judicial Council and AOC. The same would be true about any abuse of funds for hotels for the ” insiders” and their administrative minions. Wendy you are one of the people I most admire here on JCW. Never give up the good fight for restoring justice and ethics to our once proud branch of government. Someday it would also be an awesome honor to meet you, to thank you for all the great contributions you have made here.
Wendy Darling
July 30, 2013
I look forward to the day we can all meet up at Happy Hour and raise a glass to the democratization of the judicial council and the return of ethics and integrity to judicial branch administration.
Sadly, I no longer believe that that day will come. At least not in my lifetime.
Lando
July 30, 2013
I agree OBT. Behind the scenes, things are falling apart for the overlords of the crystal palace. They aren’t fooling anyone in the legislature , Governor’s office or State Bar. The CJ’s incompetence, the failure to adopt the SEC report and Justice Hull’s arrogance are obvious to all. The revolution is here. All the great people who contribute to this site should always feel good about the change they are helping bring about. In the great words of the Boss of Rock and Roll, no retreat and no surrender.
unionman575
July 30, 2013
unionman575
July 30, 2013
I feel good today and I don’t know why…making progress every day….
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
July 30, 2013
Yes, I’m feeling good today too. Love the progress. 😉
Lando
July 30, 2013
I feel great today too unionman. Change and reform are in the air. The arrogance and incompetence of HRH-2, Hull and Miller are opening the door to the very realistic potential for positive legislative change and reform. The revolution begins here today !
courtflea
July 30, 2013
I’m glad Halpin mentioned this blog, just shows that folks that have something to hide are running scared and that JCW is making progress in taking out the death star.
courtflea
July 30, 2013
JusticeCalifornia
July 30, 2013
Love this, flea!
courtflea
July 30, 2013
kinda catchy huh? That was for unionman, lando and JCW. Welcome back Justice CA!!!