One of the things that has shocked us over the years is how the AOC contracts with a multitude of entities that 1) Don’t appear to be legally formed or exist or 2) that they seemingly hire or otherwise engage hundreds of new law firms every year across California. The latter serves to bolster their invincible immunity because there is hardly any law firm across the state that wouldn’t have to conflict out of representing those who might feel slighted by the Judicial Council or the AOC.
Recently, the legislature passed a requirement that the judicial branch report individual contracts in semi-annual reporting periods. The reason the legislature passed this requirement was because the legislature had learned through various whistleblowers that the AOC was contracting with entities that did not appear to legally exist or were legally formed. Two such entities that should rapidly spring to mind is Team Jacobs and Aleut Global Solutions who both lacked contractors licenses.
Luckily, those sharp legal minds on the litigation management committee of the judicial council realized that if they controlled any and all litigation, they would be able to snuff out any and all allegations of impropriety directed at themselves so they set about controlling the litigation to a loss against Jacobs and apparently a confidential settlement with respect to Aleut. We’re guessing it was a confidential settlement because the AOC tells us the matter is confidential.
Over these required reporting periods we sat back and used a little known tool that anyone in the judicial branch has access to and permitted the AOC to hang themselves. Now we’re going to go the extra mile and distribute the list to legislators. This little tool could have done so much to clarify the legally formed status of those that do business with the AOC. Surely, the AOC checks with California Department of Business Oversight, California’s new one-stop shop for everything related to corporate and limited liability\limited partnership status to determine if an entity is legal before doing business with them don’t they? That link is available here http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/
Our review of these records indicate that little to no effort is employed to identify these shell entities that the AOC is paying hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to. Some of these entities even collect sales tax for purchases but don’t appear to have a resellers license either and therefore do not remit sales taxes collected from the AOC back to the State of California.
We conservatively estimate that the sales taxes that are not remitted back to the state for purchases made would probably pay the salaries of all AOC workers each and every year. That amount probably exceeds those who avoid paying corporate, LLC or LLP fees along with corporate income taxes because the AOC contracted with a foreign or non-existent corporation, LLC or LLP.
This mess, which will hopefully be addressed by the legislature, should culminate in a BSA audit to the vendor level to determine how much has been lost to the state of California based on nothing more than contracting negligence. Much like the AOC has a duty to verify that their contractors are licensed, they also have a duty to verify that the business entities that they do business with are authorized to do business within the State of California.
We’re going to pick on just one AOC contracting entity today because we find great irony in this particular selection. You see, this company is the go-to hired gun law firm for the AOC in all employment matters. The AOC has been contracting with them for years, yet there appears to be no record of them with the Secretary of State.
Wiley Price & Radulovich, LLP handles most of the AOC’s high profile employment cases, yet they cannot be found on the Secretary of State’s website. Interestingly, Wiley, Price & Radulovich, LLP also appears to claim to represent a whole lot of other high profile government clients and many individual superior courts.
Disclaimer: This tool allows you to search the Secretary of State’s California Business Search database for abstracts of information for domestic stock, domestic nonprofit and qualified foreign corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships that have filed with this office. This search tool groups corporations separately from limited liability companies and limited partnerships and returns all entities for the search criteria in the respective groups regardless of the current status. Although every attempt has been made to ensure that the information contained in the database is accurate, the Secretary of State’s office is not responsible for any loss, consequence, or damage resulting directly or indirectly from reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of the information that is provided. All such information is provided “as is.” For information on ordering copies of the official business entity records for a particular entity, please refer to Information Requests.
Okay, we read the disclaimer. It does not explain that we should not rely upon this information. It does say that the Secretary of State is not responsible for relying on the accuracy of what is being provided. We searched for Wiley Price and Radulovich, LLP a hundred ways to Sunday, even breaking down to just individual names. No matter what is done, we could not get this system to return any records on Wiley Price & Radulovich, LLP.
Calling their Alameda offices, the receptionist was unable to provide us with a Secretary of State “entity number” or direct our call to someone who could clarify for us, yet assured us that this company was registered with the Secretary of State. She suggested a follow-up call later in the week with a “bookkeeper” indicating the bookkeeper “would be responsible for all of those filings.”
One would think Wiley, Price or Radulovich would have that information at hand but true to AOC form, they do not. Once our list is distributed to legislators, it will be simultaneously posted here.
If anyone happens to stumble upon any additional information regarding the formation of Wiley Price & Radulovich, LLP that we might have overlooked, kindly post in-thread or drop us a note in the private message window at https://forms.hush.com/judicialcouncilwatcher . We strive for accuracy in our reports and are not attempting to defame such a prestigious law firm with so many state and government clients. We’re just wondering why they don’t show up on the Secretary of States website and WPR can’t seem to explain it.
Here is the contracts list: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-JBCL-Semiannual-Contract-Report-08-01-2013.pdf
Now everyone can be an investigator. Open the list and compare the information provided to what is found on the secretary of states website here. http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/
Related articles
- Fact checking fact check again…Courthouse Construction (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- The AOC: The only place in government where making 12 copies takes 60 days (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- We will soon be spending more than we will be taking in on court construction? (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Willful Blindness – a condition experienced by most of the judicial branch (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- Chief Justice hands out pay raises (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
- The $10,000.00 estimate from the company that does not exist (judicialcouncilwatcher.com)
unionman575
September 10, 2013
http://lbpost.com/news/2000002818-395m-courthouse-officially-opens-doors-for-trials-traffic-offenses-and-more
Delilah
September 10, 2013
Besides handling high-profile employment cases, I can tell you that at least of one of the named law firm partners is frequently brought in as a hired gun — and I do mean gun — to act in the role of lead negotiator for various courts during contract negotiations with union-represented employees. Therefore, this “chief negotiator” who is supposedly hired by and acting on the trial court’s behalf is really acting in the AOC’s behalf in order to fulfill the AOC agenda of screwing the employees of the individual courts that are anxious and willing to toe the AOC line.
But that information is probably old news.
unionman575
September 10, 2013
Admin Contact
Allen, Becky
Wiley Price & Radulovich, LLP
1301 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 310
Alameda, CA 94501
US
510-337-2810 fax: 510-337-2811
http://www.sitetrail.com/wprlaw.com
unionman575
September 10, 2013
The office address of Wiley Price & Radulovich is 1301 Marina Village Pkwy # 310 Alameda, California. Joseph E Wiley is the owner or official contact person(Partner). Please call Wiley Price & Radulovich at (510) 337-2810 for more information about their services. We will appreciate if you let Joseph E Wiley know that you know the business and get the phone number from myMoneyPro.org.
The Standard Industrial Classification(SIC) of Wiley Price & Radulovich is 811103 – Attorneys. A law firm is a business entity formed by one or more lawyers to engage in the practice of law. The primary service provided by a law firm is to advise clients (individuals or corporations) about their legal rights and responsibilities, and to represent their clients in civil or criminal cases, business transactions and other matters in which legal assistance is sought.
Its estimated number of employees is 8. Its office number is (510) 337-2810. Its fax number is (510) 337-2810. Wiley Price & Radulovich has a web site at http://www.wprlaw.com.
http://www.mymoneypro.org/Lawyer/Joseph-Wiley-Wiley-Price-Radulovich/
unionman575
September 10, 2013
Formed in 1996, our firm’s success is driven by our client loyalty and our service to our clients in productive, efficient and cost-effective ways. We strive to understand our client’s needs and provide solutions to their employment problems. Our clients tell us that they appreciate our responsiveness and value our ability to provide practical advice to assist them with their employment law and other human resources issues.
http://www.linkedin.com/company/wiley-price-and-radulovich-llp
Wendy Darling
September 10, 2013
Our firm’s success is driven by our willingness to do whatever it takes to win for our client, including a dedication to a lack of ethics, lying, and even breaking the law if necessary. Ex parte communications with judges is our particular specialty.
unionman575
September 11, 2013
My, my, my…
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/are-these-trips-truly-mission-critical-re-california-public-executives
CalPERS Persuades Court That Federal Receiver Is A State Employee
In 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton E. Henderson established a receivership for medical care in California’s prisons. In an unusual bit of administrative gerrymandering, the California Judicial Council through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) appointed the current receiver as a “Federal Court Consultant” and then “loaned” the receiver to the California Prison Health Care Receivership Corporation. The alleged purpose of all these machinations was to maintain the receiver’s eligibility with CalPERS. In 2011, an individual filed a petition for a writ of mandate. Last week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny ruled that the petitioner had not shown that CalPERS’ determination that the receiver was an employee was invalid or that payments by AOC to the receiver amount to gifts of public funds.
The petitioner wasn’t the only person to question the receiver’s status. In 2009, San Diego Superior Court Judge Runston Maino in his individual capacity initiated this inquiry http://calcorporatelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Runston.pdf as to who was paying the receiver, as evidenced by this filed in the Sacramento proceeding.
😉
Judicial Council Watcher
September 11, 2013
Appended at the bottom of the initial post are the tools to make you all investigators.
1. The most recent judicial branch contracting list
2. a link to the secretary of states entity lookup tool
Yen Interactive Media
September 11, 2013
A third call was placed to the offices of Wiley Price & Radulovich where we attempted to follow up with Becky Allen. Joe Wiley answered the phone,
Asked about why his company was not registered with the Secretary of State:
“You know, we have to check with our lawyers because they did all this work. I can’t explain why we don’t show up on the secretary of states website. We’re registered with the state bar as an LLP so we’re a bonafide LLP. ”
____________________________________________________
You can register your corp with disneyland. That does not make you official. This should also serve as notice to the state bar that they might be accepting firms that might not be registered to do business within the state of California – except to be registered with them.
wearyant
September 11, 2013
The lawyers are gonna check with their lawyers. Hmmmm. Anyone else see the irony in that? And in representing many superior courts within California, wouldn’t that pose a conflict, at least in appearance, with representing the JC/AOC? Or am I just old-fashioned in my ethics that way …
Yen Interactive Media
September 11, 2013
More: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/bus_structures/LLpartner.shtml
16x800x100%penalty+interest=$25,600.00+++… but this is just an educated guess.
MaxRebo5
September 11, 2013
The Judicial Council made headlines in the Sac Bee today over the proposed arena downtown for the Kings. The JC appears to be opposed to the current bill to streamline the environmental review process because of its posible impacts on the courts. Interesting position to take as this is Steinberg’s baby to get this arena done and he and the Chief are normally close allies. I wonder if the JC ever voted on this opposition or just another Office of Government Affairs (AOC Lobbyist) action. In either case, I’d say the list of allies in the other branches for the JC is growing very thin. Not a smart move pissing off the leader of the Senate when you want more court funding. I mean really, how much more work is going to come from the streamlining of the environmental review? One case maybe? That would hardly impact the courts at all. Good job Team George and Judicial Council. lol
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/11/5727262/california-judicial-council-opposes.html
The other funny thing is the comments. The average person has no idea what the Judicial Council is. They don’t have any idea either that the whole council is appointed by just one person – The Chief Justice.
wearyant
September 11, 2013
“The average person has no idea what the Judicial Council is. They don’t have any idea either that the whole council is appointed by just one person – The Chief Justice.”
That’s one of the main reasons proponents of this website have such slow going and an uphill fight along with the ACJ to get any meaningful reform such as democratizing the JC, in my humble opinion. But more and more people are waking up. Perhaps good ol’ Steinberg felt he was one of the ones who got “the finger” when teensy Tani arrogantly gave her Team George the raises.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 12, 2013
From the realm of the private message window:
To clarify on how the JC takes positions on legislation: In almost every instance the PCLC of the Council (chaired by Baxter,J) takes positions on behalf of the full council. On rare occasions, bills are referred to the entire JC for a position. AOC OGA is not empowered to take legislative positions w/o at least PCLC action.
wearyant
September 11, 2013
A bill affecting the California Records Act to go to the voters in June. Let’s all show up and vote, shall we? Absentee voting is convenient too these days. Steinberg’s name is still on this one. What will this bill look like in a few months? The AOC should not be an exception to public scrutiny; instead let’s make this rogue industry the poster child for public access. “Public access.” Now, that’s a cryin’ joke, ain’t it, as the trial courts flounder and stumble along all due to the actions or inactions of the JC/AOC/CJ …
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/09/public-records-act-amendment-going-to-june-ballot.html
wearyant
September 11, 2013
http://community.onelegal.com/bid/101686/NCSC-s-Court-Technology-Bulletin-Speaks-to-the-Benefits-of-eFiling
The above showed up in my “mail” as “NCSC’s Court Technology Bull …” Ha ha ha! Oh, well gotta get my laughs where I can these days.
It’s a discussion about fees versus taxes, what is and what isn’t. Are the commoners waking up yet? Is there hope, folks? Let’s keep the discussion going, don’t let it die out in apathy. I’ve got my comfortable walkin’ shoes ready …
Are people waking up to the NCSC bull … shit?! 😀 If so, I’m wearing my Lee Willoughby smile today.
courtflea
September 11, 2013
http://www.ocregister.com/blogs/taxdollars
If the Orange County court can provide this info, why can’t the AOC???
Wendy Darling
September 11, 2013
The AOC is not in the business of providing information. The AOC is in the business of hiding information.
Long live the ACJ.
Ginny Edmunds
October 22, 2013
I agree. I have sent 8 requests for information to the AOC over the past 7 months, and no information yet. Just denials that they have any information. It seems the courts do not know what salaries the employees make, when they retire, when they were hired, what courtrooms they have been assigned to, how many cases they hear…
unionman575
September 11, 2013
And now a word from LASC…
Anonymous…uh huh…
(Sent on behalf of Executive Officer/Clerk Sherri R. Carter)
Good afternoon.
I am honored to join the Los Angeles Superior Court as its new Executive Officer/Clerk. Due to the difficult decisions and your hard work over the past few years, the court has achieved a balanced budget this fiscal year; something very few California trial courts have accomplished. This means that, for the first time in many years, we can begin to move forward in stabilizing and strengthening the court.
Since the state budget provides little to no discretionary funding, we will start looking for other opportunities to save resources, implement efficiencies and increase local revenue. We will also assess workload, staffing levels, procedures and processes, and identify areas for improvement and automation. This detailed review will hopefully eliminate manual and redundant processes and enable us to make the adjustments necessary to provide relief where it is most needed.
As the largest trial court in the nation, the Los Angeles Superior Court has the potential to be an innovative leader in every area of court operations. The budget has made this difficult over the past few years but it is my goal to make our court a strong leader and employer of choice.
Below is a link to a short anonymous survey that will allow you to provide your thoughts about court processes and procedures that may need review. The current fiscal environment will not allow us to resolve all of the issues in the short run, but knowing what is important to you will allow me to incorporate them in establishing short and long-term goals.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9T2N9C9
Your commitment and dedication to the court and its users have enabled the Los Angeles Superior Court to survive what has been one of the most difficult financial crisis in its history. I hope you will take a few minutes to share your thoughts and I look forward to working with you.
Thank you for your support.
Sherri R. Carter
Executive Officer/Clerk
😉
Wendy Darling
September 11, 2013
Chances are high that the “survey” was put together by the AOC for the LASC. And anyone who has worked at the AOC knows that there is no such thing as an “anonymous” AOC survey.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 12, 2013
Correct.
😉
Yen Interactive
September 12, 2013
In an expansion of our investigation into these matters, we’ve requested a list of all 2,700 LLP’s registered with Calbar as it appears that several identified in the AOC’s list of contracts indicate they hold llp certification by Calbar yet do not appear that they have filed with the Secretary of State.
We find this discrepancy interesting because it appears Calbar requires SOS registration as a condition of getting bar certified. So how is it possible that a law firm could hold a Calbar certificate of LLP status when they’re apparently not registered with the Secretary of State?
The public information officer of the Secretary of State indicates that if it is not on their website then they did not file.
Stay tuned for more information.
wearyant
September 12, 2013
“Lip certification by Calbar”? What does that mean exactly?
Judicial Council Watcher
September 12, 2013
you can get recognized as a limited liability partnership law firm by doing two things:
1. Register with the Secretary of State first
2. Register with Calbar afterwards
Wendy Darling
September 12, 2013
Of course if you’re above the law, and your best friends are located at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the rules don’t apply to you, so you just skip steps one and two, do what ever you want to do, and when you get caught, you just lie about it.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 12, 2013
Sep 11
State, counties weigh fate of some 50 closed courthouses
Daily Journal
(Subscription required) Where attorneys once plied their trade, members of the public sought their day in court and judges issued rulings, a library of microfilm now gathers dust. Extra benches, too, have been moved into the now-shuttered Chino courthouse, formerly home to three courtrooms in the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County. Until further notice, the facility is storage space. Nothing more.
NewsViews
September 15, 2013
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
Wendy Darling
September 16, 2013
And now a few observations from Milt Policzer at Courthouse News Service on the new Long Beach courthouse:
LB Courthouse Takes Off
By MILT POLICZER
They’ve turned the Long Beach, Calif., courthouse into an airport.
Things are surreal in So Cal these days.
I know this isn’t relevant to most of our international reading audience, but the courthouse event of last week – the opening of a $340 million courthouse in Long Beach – is definitely interesting and may be an example for other courts around the world.
A strange example, but definitely an example.
Before we get into lessons, though, let’s look at the surrealism.
Los Angeles County closed eight courthouses this year, stopped providing court reporters in civil cases, and fired 500 people.
Then it finished building a $340 million courthouse.
Apparently there isn’t any money to demolish the old Long Beach courthouse so it will just sit there on really valuable land in downtown Long Beach not far from the ocean.
Yes, I’m shaking my head as I write this, but you know what a cynic I am. Maybe there’s a perfectly good explanation for this. All the news reports say this was a “public-private” partnership, but apparently part of the deal is that the county gets to pay for all the construction – plus interest – over 35 years.
Sounds strangely like a bond issue.
So what’s the private part? (And, no, that wasn’t an obscene reference.)
I don’t know. If I were still a real news reporter and had some time and energy, I’d be looking more closely at this.
But since I’m a lazy old guy now, let’s treat this as a summary judgment motion and consider the construction in its most positive light.
A brief description of this new monument is in order first.
If you were blindfolded and taken through the front door of this edifice before being allowed to see, you’d swear you were in an airport terminal.
There’s a huge high-ceilinged open area just inside the doors – big enough for a couple of courtrooms – and what you see on the other end of this is a row of metal detectors and conveyor-belt x-ray machines. Above, there’s a flashing light display that looks like leaves (I think) for no readily apparent reason, but it does look nice.
On the right, high up on the wall are a row of LED screens with lines of numbers and names just like you’d see at an airport.
Except that no one (at least while I was there) was looking at the screens. (In case you’re wondering, the screens show docket numbers and party names. Apparently, they’re for people who have no idea what gate their trial is leaving from.)
Once you get past the metal detectors, you’re still not in anything resembling a courthouse. There’s more open space (another courtroom’s worth) and more LED screens in case you missed the first group.
If you go straight at this point, you find glass doors that open onto a courtyard at least as big as a football field with some nice plants, benches, and a long, narrow reflecting pool. Very Zen. Not very Court.
The courts and clerk’s offices are off to the left. I didn’t check everything out, but the highlight for me was discovering that civil court files weren’t in the room with the “civil” sign – there were in “family law/probate.” You have no way of knowing that until you go through the line in the civil section.
Apparently there’s going to be more stuff in there – the right side of the building was a bit of a mystery although I saw a few uniformed-types coming out of doors. I’m sure whoever those “private” investors are have something in mind. A Wal-Mart perhaps? Condos?
I see some obvious uses that could actually make money for the court system.
For example, this could be a terrific airport terminal.
Why fight the traffic and security lines at LAX when you can check in at the Long Beach Courthouse, go quickly through security there, check the flight/docket screens, and hop onto a helicopter in the huge courtyard that takes you directly to your flight?
I’d pay the court an extra $20 for that kind of service.
Cirque du Soleil could rent out the space. There’s plenty of room for aerial acts.
Party rentals come to mind. Imagine toga parties where judges could easily blend in.
And the court courtyard (court-squared yard?) is perfect for weddings. You’ve got the judges right there to do the honors and lots of retail space for flower and dress shops and caterers.
I’m thinking a wedding-planner kiosk right inside those front doors will be inspirational.
Judicial systems around the world take note: this could be a big-time money-maker.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/16/61169.htm
Long live the ACJ.