In just a few days the judicial council staff offices will greet Martin Hoshino as their new executive director. If you have observed what we’ve observed about the judicial council over the last several years then you know that the state auditor was about to issue a report on her audit of the entity formerly known as the AOC.
In a rush to provide cover for a likely scathing report, our chief justice summarily floated an idea to provide that cover by declaring that the AOC is actually judicial council staff. In the rush to reform, the council passed the idea of renaming the “Titanic” AOC to the “Britannic” Judicial Council Staff, Stephen Jahr was sent packing in a dignified way and the state auditor likely agreed to delay the release of the audit until January. Martin Hoshino was announced as the new executive director so that the judicial council could once again proudly claim come January that it is all in the past – water under the bridge. They will proudly declare they have already resolved under new leadership all of the issues that the state auditor turned up but most importantly, the delay of the release of the audit report until January will likely serve to prevent any corrective legislation being introduced by the January deadline.
The release of the report will coincide with a release by JC’s Pravda that everything the auditor has identified has been corrected and that all of these wonderful people have reformed. They’ve adopted new methods to, to quote anonymous, “lay waste to millions” while courthouses continue to shut down.
It’s a tried and true pattern that has successfully worked before so why not put it all on replay and do it all again?
When these events play out in January, we’ll provide a link back to this very post. We’ll let you be the judge of how right (or wrong) we were.
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
September 24, 2014
“lay waste to millions” while courthouses continue to shut down.”
Bingo!
😉
unionman575
September 24, 2014
I am a bottom line kinda guy.
😉
R. Campomadera
September 25, 2014
They may attempt to claim “everything has changed”, but the central question will remain: how many people are still employed at the bloated Agency Formerly Known as the AOC, and what value are they adding to the administration of justice in the trial courts. Has the total position count, including full time, part time, temporary, and contract employees been substantially reduced? Has the total payroll cost of running the Agency Formerly Known as the AOC gone down, or gone up? If it’s gone down, has it gone down proportionate to the reduction in trial court funding? Or, perchance, is it an even greater percentage of the cost of running the judiciary now than it was before the funding cuts?
unionman575
September 25, 2014
Nothing has changed.
We gotta keep hammering them, each and every one of us.
That’;s a fact Jack.
Or, is that JCW?
😉
katy
September 25, 2014
Could a “NO” Vote for ALL California Justices Save the Branch? Seems it could!
http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/could-a-no-vote-for-all-california-justices-save-the-judicial-branch-seems-it-could/
MaxRebo5
September 25, 2014
Wow Sharon! That is quite a strategy. If the press and social media picks it up and people start pushing it on facebook to all their friends in CA to vote no on all judges on the ballot this November it could go viral and you’d have something. Lord knows there has to be some sort of fire lit under the majority of CA judges to start forcing reforms from within the branch. Even if your no vote effort fails but the percentage of no votes goes up dramatically this fall the judges and justices might take notice. That could get them involved in reforming the branch for fear of the public throwing them all out and starting over in two years. You have my no vote!
sharonkramer
September 25, 2014
Hi Max,
Its not my idea — I just grasped the brilliance of it of as quick and easy means to save the branch. The beauty is, no one has to become a whistleblower as voting is private. Also, its not “judges”. Its “justices” who are subject to an up or down vote.
AND its really easy to ask your friends and family, “Hey, on Nov 4th, will you check “no” next to the names of all the Supreme and Appellate Court justices?”
So far, everyone I’ve asked has said “yes”…largely because they could care less and don’t have a clue about how the dysfunctional branch impacts their lives.
And for you judges on this board who are not my greatest admirers: You, too, should anonymously check blanket “no” retention of ALL justices in the ballot booth. It would increase your odds of becoming one! lol
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2014
Retaliation against whistleblowers is supposed to be illegal, but we all know it is alive and well in the judicial branch. At all levels. Crimes committed by the those in the judicial branch are especially egregious because they undermine the integrity of the entire branch.
Those who choose to be a part of the judicial branch cannot really be fence-sitters on the issue of crimes committed by branch members. Those IN ALL THREE BRANCHES who know about crimes within the judicial branch but who adopt a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” attitude — or even worse, actively help cover up the crimes– are as guilty of undermining the integrity of the branch and create as much of a threat to the public welfare as those who actually commit the crimes.
sharonkramer
September 26, 2014
VERY well stated, Justice California.
If A = B and B = C; then A = C.
A. Willful Blindness
B. Systemic Court Corruption
C. Threat to Public Welfare
No BSA audit, legislator, governor, attorney general, or the FBI is going to stop enough A and/or B, to stop C.
But a public vote which removes nearly half of those from reviewing courts who practice A and/or B; would help tremendously to stop C.
MaxRebo5
September 25, 2014
Interesting article in Courthouse news:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/24/71777.htm
I don’t understand how SF still has a $16 million dollar reserve. I thought the Governor told the trial courts to spend that money down.
In an article back in January of 2014 the Consumer Attorneys of CA said “…last year the courts spent down $250 million in reserves to maintain their operations as well as they could. This year, all the reserves are spent.”
Here is a link to their article:
http://rftmlaw.com/?development=sign-of-hope-for-courts-in-browns-proposed-budget
If the union claims are right in the CN article then clearly not all the reserves have been spent down. San Francisco alone still has over 16 million that their judges and admin are hording. I know Sacramento Superior Court had $17 million in reserves when I was laid off in 2012. Had Sacramento spent a small piece of it down I and my coworkers would never have had to be laid off. Dennis Jones had plenty money for his existing staff in Sacramento to weather the recession but chose to save it. That is a shameful policy and totally against what the Governor/Legislature was calling for in the budget.
No state agency in the executive branch is allowed to have reserves so courts in the judicial branch for the first time were being held to that very same standard. Trial courts are not supposed to each sit on their own little piggy bank of public funds to carry over from year to year and spend however they want. That money was to be spent right away to avoid layoffs and keep courthouses open. Courts should have spent that public money down 100% as called for in the budget by the legislature and governor but it appears in SF (and I bet Sacramento) they haven’t.
For the clerks in SF it must really suck because they can’t help but see the giant Judicial Council staff building right there in San Francisco costing hundreds of millions each year. No money for raises for trial court staff ,who are the ones processing cases for the public, but the Judicial Council has funding to maintain 800 admin staff where not one case is resolved. Add on the fact that local court admin in SF is hording public money for pet projects instead of paying their workers and it is quite a mess.
I also think some trial courts want to use their reserves to pay for IT projects since CCMS was such a bust. That’s not right either. The state gave the Judicial Council hundreds of millions for CCMS and all of those folks from Team George (Jody and the Curts) continue to make six figure salaries even though they failed the branch and public horribly. They should all be fired for their roles in CCMS but instead Tani gives them awards. I claim that Tani has yet to change the culture of the AOC and take responsibility for the failures of her admin related to CCMS. The proof to my claim is in the fact she gives out the Vickrey Award each year despite the legislature calling for his head over CCMS. She remains defiant and dislikes being held accountable for Judicial Council failures. Even if Mr. Hoshino proves to be a reformer his boss isn’t so good luck to him in working for her given he serves as an at will employee to the Chief.
If trial courts save their reserves to fund IT projects, instead of using that money to pay their workers, then local trial court administrators and judges are basically helping Tani to hide the full damage of the AOC’s IT mistakes related to CCMS. Those reserves provide financial cover to fund needed court IT projects which helps shield those in charge at the AOC from being held responsible for their huge role in the dismal state of technology in CA Courts today. This saving of reserves is hurting court workers who won’t get income needed to support their families. I say trial courts should spend the reserves on earned salary increases for staff and let the AOC “leaders” from Team George finally take the fall for CCMS that they too earned. Team George should have been cut several years ago when the CCMS boondoggle was first exposed but thanks to Tani they still run the show collecting six figure salaries and great pensions for life. Hopefully the Audit in January will bring this sad chapter in CA Courts history to a close but I doubt it. Great work JCW and I hope the ACJ’s keeps up the pressure for real reforms of the Judicial Council and it’s staff.
unionman575
September 25, 2014
“For the clerks in SF it must really suck because they can’t help but see the giant Judicial Council staff building right there in San Francisco costing hundreds of millions each year.”
That sucks big time!
😉
Dante
September 25, 2014
I’m not arguing with your comment, but I do have two points to make about the facts cited:
1. The “fact” that the San Francisco Superior Court has a $16 mil. reserve comes exclusively from the union. There is no verification, and I don’t believe they do have such a reserve. If they do, they will lose it in the 2014-15 budget allocation.
2. You say that no executive branch agencies get to have reserves. Here is a partial list of California agencies that keep budget reserves:
Senate
Assembly
Attorney General
Secretary of State
Treasurer
Insurance Commissioner
Public Utilities Commission
Counties
Cities
School Districts
University of California
Cal State University
Hastings College of the Law
Water Districts
Air Quality Management Districts
Gambling Control Commission
Medical Board of California
Cemetery and Funeral Bureau
Fire Protection Districts
Community Service Districts
Recreation and Park Districts
Irrigation Districts
State Contractors’ License Board
Hospital Districts
Sanitary Districts
Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control Districts
Memorial Districts
Transit Districts
Department of Food and Agriculture
Levee Districts
Library Districts
Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors and Geologists
Court Reporters Board of California
Public Utility Districts
Citrus Pest Control Districts
Police Protection Districts
Garbage Disposal Districts
California Educational Facilities Authority
District Agricultural Associations
San Joaquin River Conservancy
California Urban Waterfront Area Restoration Financing Authority
State Assistance for Enterprise Business and Industrial Development
Corporation
Harbor and Port Districts
Airport Districts
State Board of Optometry
Board of Registered Nursing
Structural Pest Control Board
Department of Parks and Recreation
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Health Care Services
Department of Industrial Relations
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
California Conservation Corps
Department of General Services
Department of Veteran’s Affairs
California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation
Acupuncture Board
Dental Hygiene Committee
Board of Barbering and Cosmetology
MaxRebo5
September 26, 2014
You are very polite in your comment Dante.
You are right my comment was sourced only from the union. I tried to admit that upfront saying, “If the union claims are right in the CN article then clearly not all the reserves have been spent down.” Does anyone know if trial courts or the AOC have reported back to the legislature on how they spent down their reserves?
As for those “agencies” listed, most of the names on that list are not state agencies. The Medical Board, Board of Registered Nursing, Dental Hygiene Board, Acupuncture Board, Board or Barbering and Cosmetology, Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal, Structural Pest Control Board, Board of Optometry, Court Reporters Board, Board of Professional Engineers Land Surveyors and Geologists, and about 30 other boards and bureaus you could have listed but did not are all a part of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) which licenses most professions in California. DCA was my employer last year but it too is not even a state agency. It is a department but you are right to hold them to the no reserve standard.
My point is DCA is funded primarily by the licenses and fees of the 40+ boards and bureaus it is comprised of and my understanding is it has a positive impact overall on the state budget. This is unlike CA Courts where the General Fund just had to back fill millions of dollars for filing fees/fines that did not materialize as projected by the AOC because case filings are down 25% statewide since 2009 (the source for my case filing decline claim is below).
Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2014-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf
I was told while working at DCA that the Medical Board of California brings in more money in licensing fees from doctors than it costs the state to administer. These boards I was told by DCA managers fund themselves but perhaps they were wrong? If they are right, that is very different situation than the CA Courts which draw down on the General Fund. My experience in DCA’s Business Service Office was they spent what they had each year and did not carry reserves from one year to the next for fear of the Legislature taking it from them. So here are programs in the Executive Branch making more money for the state than they cost taxpayers but they still don’t want to have reserves from year to year. Compare that to CA Courts which draws down the state General Fund plus local courts each want to have “reserves” to use even if workload is down and they aren’t taking in enough in fines and fees to come close to covering their expenses. I’m not for cuts to local courts but I also don’t think they should get to keep their reserves when they are asking for more General Fund money. Spend the reserves to keep courts open for the public.
On a tangent topic, one funny thing I took notice of while working at DCA was there was not a Board of Public Administration or Court Administration within the agency that licenses most professions in California. Court Administration is completely unregulated as a field and anyone can claim to be an expert in it. Vickrey had a BA degree and was a 2nd year law school drop out but used his amazing personality to get to the top job. Now we have a guy who helped run Corrections, with no experience in CA Courts, selected as the latest State Court Administrator (he does have an MPA which I do respect some). Or take Judge Jahr who was a good judge but had little to no administration experience running the AOC. The profession of public admin/court admin is very weak field and can’t stand up to any political pressures from judges who are very powerful in CA Courts. As a result, yes men dominate the field. A court administrator does what PJ’s or Chiefs tell them to do out of political necessity. They are all at will employees at both the local and state level so they do as told. I have no source on this paragraph and am just stating my opinion based on my experience in court admin for 15 years and I too have an MPA. I specifically studied judicial administration at USC (Judge – Judith Chirlin of SEC Report note was one of my teachers). That same Judicial Administration program generated Mike Roddy, David Yamasaki, and other court execs in CA Courts. It shut down but I hear Sac State now has a program under Ken Torre’s lead with an MPA in Judicial Admin.
Returning to the “agencies” listed, the Senate and Assembly are not part of the Executive Branch. But you are right on the point that they too should walk the walk too and not have reserves, As we all saw in 2014 alone the Senate is a mess with 3 members out of 40 being charged with felony crimes. I would agree with anyone who said the legislature needs to be cleaned up and develop standards for hiring for it’s staff since it wants to hold the other branches accountable. I consider counties, cities, school districts, State universities, water districts, Law Schools, etc. as all outside my point of holding the Judicial Branch to the same standard as the Executive Branch on the budget. Those are mostly local government agencies which are creatures of the state but are not cleanly in one of the three branches. Same with public schools – what branch are they in?
Speaking of sources for facts, Dante can you show that any of these “agencies” have reserves? I would like to see if the Attorney General (Department of Justice), Secretary of State, or State Treasurer have reserves. How do you know they have them?
I do have one other source to share and it is the CA Courts web page which says:
“Courts must spend down their reserves by June 30, 2014 to 1 percent of their expenditures. However, courts will have greater flexibility than was originally proposed, and will be able to borrow short term from other branch funds, such as workers’ compensation and construction funds, to manage cash-flow issues. ”
Here is where I got the above quote:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/3202.htm
Which brings me back to SF, if they do have a 16 million dollar reserve today, as the union claims, then wouldn’t they be in violation of the budget law since it is now past June 30, 2014? Not sure what SF’s budget is but if they have a $16 million dollar reserve, as the union claims, then their budget would have to be 1,600 million for that to be a 1% reserve compliance level. Seems the union could have a point here don’t you think?
Lastly, I wonder how many trial courts have reserves above 1% still and if the branch is reporting back to the legislature on how trial courts have spent their reserves down. Anyone know? Since it is past June 30, 2014 can the legislature just sweep any money over the 1% allowed?
Thanks for the discussion points Dante. I like to talk about ideas openly (unlike the Judicial Council) and mean no disrespect in my reply to your comment. You were very polite in yours and hopefully I didn’t offend with mine.
sharonkramer
September 25, 2014
Sixteen million seems a pretty big number.
I don’t understand. Why isn’t that money being spent to keep courts open and employees employed?
How much do the other superior courts have in reserve and what is it being reserved for?
sharonkramer
September 26, 2014
Okay, these anonymous thumbs down to everything I post is getting ridiculous. Its beginning to illustrate someone who dislikes me (or is threatened by me) personally – not that they dislike what I post.
In the prior post, I merely restated a fact from someone else’s post, and then asked two questions based upon that statement.
I don’t mind anonymous thumbs down when they represent a differing perspective. But it does bug me when some idiot hits that buttion for obvious personal reasons.
Wendy Darling
September 25, 2014
And the beat goes on. Published today, Thursday, September 25, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Marisa Kendall:
Santa Clara Court Reduces Business Hours
Marisa Kendall
The Recorder
SAN FRANCISCO — Santa Clara County Superior Court will trim its hours next month in the latest concession to budget cuts that have been plaguing state courts for years.
The court’s new business office and telephone hours will be 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. starting Nov. 24, according to a Wednesday news release. Currently, the office is generally open until 4 p.m.
“Since 2009, state funding for the judicial branch has been significantly reduced, with those reductions impacting the budgets of individual superior courts,” the release states. “The limited amount of funding restored in FY 2014-15 does not make it fiscally feasible to keep the same business hours.”
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye had asked Gov. Jerry Brown for $612 million in new funding, but the final 2014-15 budget instead offered the courts $129 million. In May, Brown said judicial leaders should look for creative ways to cut costs instead of resorting to closing courts.
Plaintiffs attorney Mike Danko of Danko Meredith in Redwood Shores called the budget crunch “nothing short of disastrous.” He said, “I’ve been having a very difficult time getting to trial in a number of cases, directly as a result of a lack of courtrooms and court facilities.”
Last month, Santa Clara County Superior Court announced plans to close the civil, small claims and traffic courts in its Morgan Hill and Palo Alto branches. Those closures will go into effect Oct. 6.
San Francisco court leaders are not planning any cuts or reductions this fiscal year, according to spokeswoman Ann Donlan. The court laid off 69 employees, cut hours and closed 10 courtrooms in 2011.
San Francisco court employees are working toward making e-filing mandatory in all civil cases, a requirement they say would save money on staff, storage and paper costs.
According to Donlan, the court’s budget has dropped from $98 million in 2008 to $80 million this year.
http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1202671280826/Santa-Clara-Court-Reduces-Business-Hours?mcode=1202617072607&curindex=2
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
September 25, 2014
Click to access PublicNoticePublicHours.pdf
😉
unionman575
September 25, 2014
We get hammered in trial courts and the Death Star remains fat, dumb and happy.
B.S.!
We are mad as hell!
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm
Reduced Court Services (Government Code 68106)
Superior courts statewide continue to face significant financial challenges as a result of the current fiscal crisis, which the Legislature has recognized as one of the most serious and dire ever to affect the state. In an effort to meet these challenges, while remaining open on all days that are not judicial holidays, and preserving as fully as possible access to court services for all litigants, many courts have announced plans to offer reduced services.
Under Government Code section 68106, courts must provide written notice to the public and to the Judicial Council at least 60 days before putting into effect a plan to reduce costs by closing courtrooms or clerks’ offices or reducing clerks’ office hours. The council must post all such notices on this Internet site within 15 days of receiving them. This page contains all notices that the council has receive from courts pursuant to section 68106.
Please note, however, that the page only contains notices of court plans to close courtrooms or clerks’ offices, or to reduce clerks’ office hours. It does not include information about other court changes (for example, restoration of services). For complete information about a specific superior court, the number and location of its courtrooms, its hours of operation, and any upcoming changes, please consult the court’s website. A list of court websites is available.
😉
sharonkramer
September 26, 2014
Fun statistical facts:
If A = B and B = C; then A = C.
A is Willful Blindness
B is Systemic Court Corruption
C is Threat to Public Welfare
50% of all Supreme Court justices are subject to voter retention or removal in November (3 out of 6)
Approximately 40% of all Court of Appeal justices are subject to voter retention or removal in November (42 out of 105)
Voter ousting of 50% of the Supreme Court and 40% of Court of Appeal justices for collectively practicing A and/or B while causing C; would surely cause an epiphany among those still in office to stop practicing A and/or B while causing C.
Poof! Delaying, denying and obsfucating is gone by directive of the voters!
Another fun statistical fact:
According to the JC and CJP websites and my preliminary accounting;
Of the 42 appellate justices who are subject to potential voter ousting for A, B, and C; nearly 25% sit on Judicial Council advisory committees and/or the Commission for Judicial Performance.
And possibly my favorite fun statistical fact:
According to the JC website, 0% of San Diego County Superior Court CEO’s sit on any JC advisory body (unless I missed one!).
unionman575
September 26, 2014
A true Blue Light Special on this fine Friday night…
Click to access eandp-20140918-notice.pdf
The Chair of the Executive and Planning Committee having concluded that prompt action is needed, public notice is hereby given that the Executive and Planning Committee proposes to act by email between meetings beginning on Monday, September 29, at 12:00 p.m. in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(1)(B). A copy of the proposed action is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above. …
😉
Promptness, not openness is a must.
Right Chief?
Gotta pour myself another Vodka Tonic…BRB…
unionman575
September 26, 2014
Beam me up Scottie…
Click to access jctc-20140929-NoticeofMeeting.pdf
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS
Meeting Date: September 29, 2014
Time: 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Public Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831
Passcode: 3511860
Calling my IT pal Michael Paul…please join the fun!
wearyant
September 26, 2014
So, no more anonymous public listening. Dammit! Y’all must sign in. Talk about controlling. Yes, the vodka is looking pretty good about now on a Friday night with the evil empire up one and zero to transparency and accountability. 😗
unionman575
September 26, 2014
Click to access rupro-20141001-notice.pdf
Notice of Open Meeting of the
Rules and Projects Committee
Meeting Date: October 1, 2014
Time: 12:45 p.m.
Location: Teleconference
Public Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831, passcode 7291440 (listen only)
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(e)(1), public notice is hereby given that the Rules and Projects Committee will hold a meeting open to the public on October 1, 2014, starting at 12:45 p.m. A copy of the agenda for this meeting is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
Listen Only?
WTF?
😉
Really?
Nothing like a relaxing evening with plenty of Vodka Tonic on hand.
😉
unionman575
September 26, 2014
I need a Michael Paul cameo on this one too…
Click to access tptf-20140708-ActionbyEmailNotice.pdf
Notice of Action by E-mail Between Meetings for
Technology Planning Task Force
The Chair of the Technology Planning Task Force having concluded that prompt action is needed, public notice is hereby given that the Technology Planning Task Force proposes to act by email between meetings in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(1)(B). A copy of the proposed action is available on the advisory body web page on the California Courts website listed above.
Written Comment
In accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 10.75(o)(2), written comments pertaining to the proposed action may be submitted before the Technology Planning Task Force acts on the proposal. For this specific meeting, comments should be e-mailed to jctc@jud.ca.gov or delivered to 2255 N. Ontario Street, Suite 220, Burbank, California 91504, attention: Jessica Craven.
Only comments received by July 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. will be provided to advisory body members prior to the vote.
Ya gotta love it – July 11, 2014?
Nothing like looking for a comment.
Oops we missed it!
Ah shucks.
unionman575
September 26, 2014
Click to access TFTCFA-roster.pdf
Who thinks up this stuff?
Click to access TFTCFA-charge-060713.pdf
Really?
Here is where it IS going…
wearyant
September 26, 2014
UMan continues to be a total hilarious scream as he tirelessly posts the insane notices put out by the agency formerly and infamously known as the AOC, as they continue to scramble and kick up lots of dust attempting to appear to earn their big bucks. I guess I will have to give in to my strong desire to buy a Dammit Doll. The vodka just isn’t makin’ it tonight. Is there any peace in Gilead?! 😱
unionman575
September 27, 2014
Is there any peace in Gilead?! 😱
Nope.
😉
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2014
A sudden flurry of email /prompt action required activity right now, while the media/multibranch spotlight is about to be on the Judicial Council, big time? LOL.
And I guarantee we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg about the panic going on right now.
sharonkramer
September 26, 2014
You don’t suppose Mr. Hoshino has quit already, do you?
JusticeCalifornia
September 26, 2014
No. I believe that certain Judicial Council members AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS and staff have engaged in, knowN about, and/or have covered for court crimes and are now trying to figure out how they are going to cover their asses and deal with conflicts of interest since they have been designated the place to go for victims of crimes committed within the branch by Judicial Council members and staff.
ROTFL.
The OBT
September 27, 2014
Is it possible the state Auditor’s report was extended as they needed more time to investigate the mess created by the overlords at 455 Golden Gate? The State Auditor had the courage to expose the Judicial Council and AOC for the incredible CCMS blunder so I say we should let them take as long as they need for a larger review of the entire Crystal Palace. As for Mr Hoshino I have no confidence he will do anything other than what HRH-2, J Hull and J Miler want. Hoshino lost all credibility the minute J Hull pronounced he was the most qualified person in the entire country to run the AOC I mean the Judicial Council staff. .Please remember that is exactly what Hull said abut J Jahr and we all know how that worked out.
Lando
September 27, 2014
Speaking of Judge Jahr isn’t his last day next Tuesday? Maybe I am wrong but Jahr struck me as a decent guy who could never get anywhere as he was subject to the whims and inconsistent so called “leadership” of Queen Tani. Since that so called “leadership” has been a total failure, Jahr was doomed to become the ” fall guy” for our Queen and the anti-democtratic rule of her “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate. Given all of the above, good luck Mr Hoshino. .
sharonkramer
September 27, 2014
I can’t grasp the logic of why anyone with clean hands and sound mind would accept the position of AOC director. The first thing they would need to do to make that org function properly is fire their underlings who have committed and covered-up dishonest act on behalf of their bosses. Does Mr. Hoshino’s resume’ state that he is a professional tight-rope walker?
Judicial Council Watcher
September 27, 2014
He will be paid about a quarter million dollars per year. Add benefits and he’s probably earning 400 grand. He will end his career with a lavish Calpers payout.
wearyant
September 28, 2014
A little off topic, but here goes. Our guv Jer along with others who are terribly concerned for the little guys’ welfare have put through SB 1253. I have wondered — for about a split second once in a blue moon — how our King Ron George spends his days to keep amused of late since his schedule may have opened up quite a bit since stepping from the throne. What do the elite, powerful people do to fill their time? A small part of his time has been apparently spent thinking of the unwashed commoners and their plight in crazy California and perhaps the world. This is truly heart-warming, folks.
And I must say, I truly enjoyed the way ronG handled that evil bastard Buono. My fuzzy recollection is that Buono could have technically walked, the way the law was at the time. It was frightening and galling. But ronG pulled an end run on the literal translation of extant law, in my hazy memory, and some tricky maneuvering was done to keep a known heinous killer confined. I could go back and review, but frankly I’m too lazy. I like the memory I have. I loved that ronG. What has since happened to the trial courts in the misled centralization crap almost trumps that … almost. The power grabs and the build-up of the agency formerly known as the infamous AOC under the dicktators, both he and she since, almost cancels the good done … almost.
So I see in the paper, oh, so this is some of what he’s been up to — ronG, not Buono, heh heh. May Buono burn, baby, burn in hell.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“By The Associated Press
“SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown signed on Saturday a bill that he said will modernize California’s century-old initiative process and provide better information to voters on ballot measures.
“The legislation by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg will allow for negotiations between initiative proponents and the Legislature in an attempt to avoid potentially harmful initiatives from being passed.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And if you need some reading to put you to sleep tonight before another Monday rolls around …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“About SB-1253:
“In its ‘Blueprint to Renew California,’ the Think Long Committee (TLC) made a series of recommendations to improve and curb the abuses of California’s prodigious initiative process (adopted a century ago from the Swiss system of popular initiatives, albeit with several consequential changes), which is badly in need of reform.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://berggruen.org/councils/think-long-committee-for-california
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Because, after all, while we commoners are resting on our laurels, I seem to recall hearing way back from somewhere that a lion prowls about aimlessly — or not so aimlessly — looking to see whom he can devour. And after reading all this crap I felt about as significant as a nit on an ant’s hairy butt.
Oh, well. Just trying to brighten y’all’s day. Happy Sunday, everyone!
sharonkramer
September 28, 2014
sharonkramer
September 29, 2014
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Arianna_Huffington
In January 2014 “Arianna Huffington and the billionaire investor Nicolas Berggruen… announced the launch of World Post, a comment and news website that looks set to become a platform for some of the most powerful people on the planet. Inevitably, the World Post will be launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this month. Many of its contributors including former British prime minister Tony Blair, Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Google’s Eric Schmidt are regulars at the annual jamboree for the world’s most connected people. Many are also advisers to the Berggruen Institute, the billionaire investor’s nonpartisan policy think tank.” [3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berggruen_Institute_on_Governance
The Think Long Committee for California[28][edit]
The Think Long Committee for California aims to offer a comprehensive approach for repairing and renovating California’s broken system of governance while proposing policies and institutions vital for the state’s long term future.[29] The Think Long Committee for California has involved a politically bi-partisan board from the outset.
The members of the Think Long Committee for California run the ideological gamut. Former Republican Secretaries of State George Schultz and Condoleezza Rice, Democrats Willie Brown and Gray Davis, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad serve on the committee. Arnold Schwarzenegger, then Governor of California, took part in the first meeting.[30]
In November 2011, the Think Long Committee published a report, A Blueprint to Renew California: Report and Recommendations.[31] The heart of the proposal, according to Berggruen and senior adviser Nathan Gardels, came in three parts:
“Local empowerment: returning decision-making power and resources where appropriate from Sacramento to localities and regions where the real economy functions and government is closer to the people — and thus more responsive, flexible and accountable. By helping to cover the costs of devolving public safety from the state to the counties, our plan will also help reduce the high costs associated with prisons — on which we absurdly spend more these days than on higher education. The Think Long plan would dedicate new revenues annually to counties for public safety and as block grants to cities for infrastructure and other locally determined uses.
An independent citizens watchdog: creating an independent watchdog for the long-term public interest as a counterbalance to the short-term mentality and special interest political culture that dominates Sacramento. This impartial and non-partisan Citizens Council for Government Accountability, which would be empowered to place initiatives directly on the ballot for public approval, will ensure that the public’s priorities — excellence in education, world-class infrastructure, a sustained quality of life, opportunities for good jobs and the strengthening of a vibrant middle class through boosting the state’s competitiveness in today’s global economy — remain at the top of the public policy agenda over the long-term. As a non-political quality control body, the Citizens Council will ensure that California taxpayers get their “return on investment.”
A modern, broad-based tax system: updating California’s tax system to mirror the real composition of our modern service and information economy and provide a stable, broad-based tax system that is sustainable over the long term.”[32]
Members of the committee, in addition to Berggruen, include:[33]
Eli Broad – Co-founder of Kaufman and Broad, Philanthropist
Willie Brown – 58th Speaker of the California State Assembly and 41st Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco
Gray Davis – 37th Governor of California
Maria Elena Durazo – Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
Ronald M. George – 27th Chief Justice of Supreme Court of California
Antonia Hernandez – President of the California Community Foundation
Robert Hertzberg – 64th Speaker of the California State Assembly
Gerry Parsky – Former Assistant Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs
Condoleezza Rice – 66th United States Secretary of State
Eric Schmidt – Chairman of Google
Terry Semel – Former CEO of Warner Bros. and Yahoo!
George P. Shultz – 60th United States Secretary of State
Laura Tyson – Former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
David Bonderman – Founding partner of TPG Capital
wearyant
September 29, 2014
“Local empowerment: returning decision-making power and resources where appropriate from Sacramento to localities and regions where the real economy functions and government is closer to the people — and thus more responsive, flexible and accountable … ”
===================================
NOW they start to realize this! “Bingo!” Shamelessly stolen from the venerable UMan.
Bring back our trial courts to their former good health, dammit!
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
September 29, 2014
Yep. Talk about a major hypocrite. That George would be one of ten people sitting on a committee which states the above as one of their only three goals, does not aid to instill my confidence in the recommendations to come out of this committee.
unionman575
September 29, 2014
“Shamelessly stolen from the venerable UMan.”
Ah I am a proud second fiddle!~
Gracias! (but,, Spanish -speaking Wife that is far more intelligent than I)
😉
Sue Holthaus
September 29, 2014
Because of WAFM and the bloat of the (former) AOC, San Diego Superior Court is proposing more layoffs of clerks, reduction in hours of court reporters and closure of more courtrooms for FY 2014-2015.
Official
September 29, 2014
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-635808-overtime-reserves.html
Shame on Orange County!
1M paid out to already full-time employees – while court reporters have had their hours cut one hour per day, thereby deeming them part-time employees for purposes of benefits contributions, making healthcare unaffordable for most court reporters now, and forcing judges to stop hearing trials at 4:30 so court reporters can be excused while the rest of the court staff sits in an empty courtroom for another half hour. We have employees giddy with the overtime money they’ve been making and the newly-hired COO posting her song choice of the month for everyone’s listening pleasure on court time – while court reporters (who protect the record for THE PUBLIC) are the only class of employees who had any reduction of hours and benefits at all. Good job, Alan Carlson. Way to spend those reserves destroying exhibits.
JusticeCalifornia
September 30, 2014
Many of us watched for years as Ron George, in his quest to build an empire, caused immense destruction and facilitated/encouraged pervasive corruption within the CA Judicial Branch. As a result he was forced out of his position as the chief justice of the biggest judiciary in the world. AOC Watcher and many here helped that happen.
Unfortunately, he left his Team George buddies behind, and they are trying to finish up what he started– central control of the branch and branch funding by a small group of non-representative and historically compromised branch cronies, almost all of which are appointed/hired by one person– the chief justice– who at this point in time happens to be a former gambling barmaid who could not get a job out of law school.
The branch under Team George has been and remains a mess. Sakauye has summarily dismissed the concerns of over 25% of the judges in this state (really–who does she think she is?), has thrown her initial support base under the bus– repeatedly–, has insulted legislators, has ignored the concerns of the public, has surrounded herself with unethical and/or incompetent advisers who have a “rap sheet” of bad/wasteful/incompetent behavior, and so much more.
So in character and out of touch of Sakauye to put document-shredding, court record-backdating, legislative audit- blocking Kim Turner, who signed off on the criminal financial acts of her former “friend/boss extraordinaire”, on the “trial court fiscal accountability task force”. That says everything we need to know about Sakauye and her Team George administration.
Official said: “court reporters (who protect the record for THE PUBLIC) are the only class of employees who had any reduction of hours and benefits at all.”
The Sakauye “administration” has actually encouraged the targeting of court reporters with respect to budget cuts. No surprise there. Criminals hate witnesses and paper trails, and like the criminal so many believe she is, Turner as a Judicial Council member spent millions per year (how?) on an archaic Marin court records management system that allows backdating and falsification with ease, while championing the cause of saving money by getting rid of court reporters, who do indeed protect the record for THE PUBLIC. It is one heck of a lot harder to falsify “official court records” when an official transcript exists. (LOL–Indeed, a court transcript revealed Turner’s controversial order to destroy child custody evidence during a JLAC audit of the Marin court. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Turner’s falsified Marin County “official court records” rival the revisionist trash spewed by the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984. Query: what magic clean up acts has she advised the Judicial Council to undertake while the legislative audits of the Judicial Council have been/are proceeding?).
In any event, if Sakauye does not clean house, and start serving the public instead of her own ego, she may well be impeached or recalled. The branch cannot stand another 9 years of the waste, incompetence, shady behavior, and erosion of trust that continue to transpire under Sakauye’s “watch”. The public will not stand for it.
I hope court reporters attend the October Judicial Council meetings and future court reform rally/protests to express concerns to the Judicial Council and others. One of two legislative “asks” at the 9/19/14 protest was a mandate that court reporters be provided for all substantive hearings. That is on the “stop court crimes” agenda for this next year as meetings with the judicial council and legislators take place. Court reporters and their representatives interested in taking part in coordinated court reform efforts can get information about upcoming Center for Judicial Excellence court reform/protest activities by contacting Kathleen Russell at:
Center for Judicial Excellence
P.O. Box 150793
San Rafael, California 94915
Email: kr@centerforjudicialexcellence.org.
MaxRebo5
September 30, 2014
That is a shame Official. I loved this line:
“Hiring new employees or seeking a contractor for the projects could have added recruitment and training costs and months of delay, Carlson said”
How about rehiring some of the employees laid off in the recession? There were like 2,500 court staff laid off statewide (not sure how many OC laid off) and nobody has any rehire lists to bring them back. That is shameful.
sharonkramer
September 30, 2014
I don’t understand this. If the courts had reserves that had to be spent, why didn’t they spend them on keeping the courts opened and staffed with judges, clerks and court reporters?
“Historically, the courts had no cap on reserves. If the Orange County Superior Court had leftover state funding at the end of the budget year, it could roll that cash into a reserve for the following year’s budget. By 2012, the courts had accumulated more than $500 million in reserves, according to estimates by the nonpartian Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Then, two years ago, lawmakers proposed capping reserves in an attempt to ease the immediate pain of budget cuts. The state slashed court funding by $150 million and prohibited individual courts from keeping more than 1 percent of annual expenses in reserves.
In theory, the proposal was arranged so the budget cuts would be offset by courts tapping their reserves. If a court didn’t spend down its reserves to 1 percent by July 1, cash exceeding the limit would return to state coffers.
For example, the Orange County Superior Court had about $38.6 million stored in reserves in 2012 and needed to drop that amount to $2.1 million under the new limits. Other courts across the state opted to tap reserves as well.
‘A lot of courts were faced with that – that they would have to spend down their reserves,’ said Teresa Ruano, a spokeswoman for the California Judicial Council. ‘If you have in mind a long-term project, now is a good time.”
unionman575
September 30, 2014
don’t understand this. If the courts had reserves that had to be spent, why didn’t they spend them on keeping the courts opened and staffed with judges, clerks and court reporters?
Because access to Justice is not on the radar at the Death Star. It’s all about each AOC (oops JC) Big Dog taking care of #1.
unionman575
September 30, 2014
How about rehiring some of the employees laid off in the recession?
How about it?
😉
MaxRebo5
September 30, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/29/6745588/california-murder-violent-crime.html#
This is a very important and great crime trend for CA!. Juvenile Crime is way down as well. Not a good trend for the workload/budgets of CA criminal or juvenile courts but they are very nice trends for the general public. On top of these crime trends is Prop 47 which is polling strongly and should reduce felony cases if it passes this November.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Proposition-47-eases-criminal-charges-stirs-5731930.php
Some say CA could legalize marijuana in 2016 which will decriminalize a very major workload area for the courts. Given Colorado and Washington have already done it this change is a real possibility for California in just two years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/marijuana-legalization-california_n_2095954.html
The near future trends show CA Courts having much fewer criminal cases coming in the courthouse doors. This will mean less fine and fee revenue, less need for additional judges, and smaller court budgets since courts are funded on a workload/case based model.
At the same time, the auto & tech industries are moving fast to introduce smart cars that will talk to one another to avoid collisions. This change is expected to reduce car accidents by 80% . I can see it also cutting into civil auto injury cases and traffic cases to the courts.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2014/02/new-cars-to-be-required-to-talk-to-each-other/
Luckily the Chief has a committee on the future ready to go to address changes:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/26627.htm
The committee is scheduled to report back in 24 months or so. I speculate the headline spin will say, “The Judicial Council staff needs additional funding to meet the new challenges to the branch as trial courts face deep ongoing cuts.”
unionman575
September 30, 2014
Behold the New World Order here:
Click to access jc_org_chart.pdf
unionman575
September 30, 2014
No staff here:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/12973.htm
Plenty of staff here
Click to access hr-staffing-metrics-1415-07.pdf
I call it the way I see it.
😉
unionman575
September 30, 2014
No staff here:
Click to access 68106-amador-20140924.pdf
Howdy Steve!
And now a word from Steve Nash:
Click to access 68106-contra-costa-20140922.pdf
unionman575
September 30, 2014
STATEWIDE IMPACTS
Mandated public service reports and periodic surveys reflect the severe and growing impact of budget cuts since 2008:
• Court closures have deprived more than 2 million Californians of access to justice in their local communities.
• 53 courthouses and a total of 204 courtrooms have closed.
• 30 courts have had to reduce hours at public service counters.
• 15 courts have had to institute limited court service days (where the majority of courtrooms and clerk’s offices are closed).
• Nearly 4,000 court staff have lost their jobs. Many courts are leaving vacant positions unfilled, and some courts continue to furlough employees.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/1494.htm
unionman575
October 1, 2014
And now a word from my fellow hard working Trial Court slum dogs…and as luck would have it, the Death Star is right there with a 5 star view…
http://www.seiu1021.org/2014/09/25/sf-court-workers-justice-goes-to-a-vote/
SF Court Workers: Justice goes to a Vote
Posted by stevestallone on September 25, 2014
SEIU 1021 San Francisco court workers continued their push for a wage increase Wednesday, Sept. 24 with their second courthouse rally in two weeks, this time ramping up the pressure by kicking off a strike authorization vote at the same time
.
As more than 100 purple-clad workers marched and chanted with picket signs and buttons reading “I’ll strike for justice” in front of the Civic Center Courthouse, they took turns lining up at tables on either side of the building’s entrance to cast secret ballots on whether to give the union bargaining team the power and discretion to call a strike should they decide talks continue to go nowhere.
The workers are in the final year of a three-year contract they won in 2012. Since during those negotiations management claimed it didn’t know if its budget could afford a raise in 2014, both sides agreed to a “wage reopener”—a new negotiation over wages only. Talks have dragged on for months and even though management acknowledged it has $16 million in reserves, it has responded to every union proposal by refusing to give one penny to the workers, sparking charges of bad faith bargaining. Frustrated and angry, the workers’ vote is their first step toward asserting their power to strike.
“YES” is the union response to the employer’s “NO”
San Francisco Court chapter President Diane Williams, also a member of the bargaining team and a clerk in the Traffic Dept. at the Hall of Justice, reviewed the union’s futile attempts at the bargaining table and exhorted her gather members to vote “YES” for the strike. From the crowd’s response it did not seem like they needed much convincing.
A couple of local progressive electeds, Supervisor Eric Mar and Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, took the mic, acknowledging the court workers’ hard and important labor, calling their cause righteous and offering their support.
Forward to the past
The strike threat is credible since these workers had done it just two years ago. On July 1, 2012 management imposed a 5% pay cut, throwing fuel on smoldering anger. Like this time, the workers had voted to grant the bargaining team authority to call a strike when they saw fit. No one but the bargaining team knew when that would be and they toyed with management’s attempts to prepare, spreading rumors that it would be this day or that until the guessing game grew tiresome.
Then on Monday morning, July 16, leaders walked through the courthouses and told everyone it was now. Grab your picket sign and walking shoes and hit the line outside. SEIU 1021 members poured out. All San Francisco’s justice system screeched to a halt, replaced by cheering and picketing strikers.
Vote!
To give all San Francisco SEIU 1021 court workers ample opportunity to have their voices heard, voting will continue at lunch hour Thursday, Friday and Monday. The bargaining team will count the ballots at the union’s hall in San Francisco on Rhode Island Street at 6 pm and will announce the results. All court workers are invited to the count.
Links to media coverage of the rally and strike vote:
KPFA: http://youtu.be/Otyi6bRP5q4
SF Appeal/Bay City News: http://sfappeal.com/2014/09/court-workers-decide-whether-or-not-to-strike-over-stalled-contract-negotiations/
KTVU2: http://tinyurl.com/nfwq5rq
KGO: http://tinyurl.com/nxjraet
KCBS : http://tinyurl.com/kghrwbv
KQED: http://tinyurl.com/ng7se3v
Courthouse News Service: http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/09/24/71777.htm
SEIU 1021 Flickr show: https://www.flickr.com/photos/89592077@N08/sets/72157647588221050/
😉
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
Doing some light reading. It looks like Mr. Hoshino already has one State Comptroller audit under his belt.
July 20, 2011 “We will continue in our efforts until we have surmounted the issues identified in this audit,” Hoshino said
http://www.sco.ca.go/eo_pressrel_10313.html
SACRAMENTO – In an audit released today, State Controller John Chiang found a lack of internal control policies and procedures at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), putting millions of public dollars at risk of fraud and misappropriation.
“My auditors found the CDCR has grossly inadequate procedures in place for collecting overpayment of salaries and travel advances made through the agency’s office revolving fund,” Chiang said. “This is the latest in a series of agency audits conducted by my staff that point to the waste and abuse of state funds due to the lack of attention to collecting overpayments. Gov. Brown and I are working together to identify the causes of these problems and to protect public funds.”
The CDCR review looked at records from July 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. The audit found inadequate collection efforts resulted in delays in collecting millions of dollars in overpayments for employee salary and travel advances. Of the more than $6 million in outstanding receivables related to salary and travel advances, more than $4 million, or 65.6%, were outstanding for longer than 60 days, and $465,000, or 7.5%, had been outstanding for more than three years.
One employee who was terminated in May 2010 received a lump sum check for $14,950 from the office’s revolving fund to meet the timeline for paying employees separating from state service. But the CDCR did not take the steps necessary to offset the employee’s final check, resulting in the former employee receiving both a salary advance and a full, final check. Six months later, there still was no effort to recoup the overpayment of $14,950.
In another case, an employee received a salary advance of more than $8,000 in January 2008, plus a regular payroll check. As of November 1, 2010, almost three years later, the advance still had not been collected, even though the employee still works for CDCR.
The audit also found that serious internal control deficiencies put the agency at risk for fraud and abuse. CDCR was tardy or noncompliant in attempting to reconcile bank accounts to ensure the accuracy and completeness of recorded transactions. As of June 30, 2010, the bank reconciliation of CDCR’s major account showed $27 million in unresolved funds on their bank balance, while CDCR’s records showed unresolved funds totaling more than $31 million on their book balance. Without reconciling these funds, anyone who has access to the fund’s check stock could fraudulently issue checks with little chance of being detected.
In addition, although state accounting procedures require two authorized signatures for payments of more than $15,000, the Controller’s review found two separate checks exceeding that amount without dual signatures.
In his response, Martin Hoshino, CDCR Undersecretary for Administration and Offender Services, said the agency agrees with the findings and already has implemented 22 of the 36 recommendations made by the Controller. Hoshino said CDCR has now “prioritized the vigorous collection of outstanding debts,” succeeding in decreasing the outstanding balance by $2.2 million since November 1, 2010. “We will continue in our efforts until we have surmounted the issues identified in this audit,” Hoshino said.
The Controller’s auditors will revisit CDCR in 12 months to assess the agency’s progress in implementing corrective actions.
Since taking office in January 2007, State Controller John Chiang’s audits have identified more than $2.59 billion in waste, abuse and misspending of taxpayer dollars.
September 29, 2014
Mr. Hoshino now has four departments to manage by directive of the http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc_org_chart.pdf
1. Operations and Programs Division, COO Curtis Childs
2. Leadership Services Division, Chief of Staff Jody Patel
3. Administrative Division, CAO Curt Soderlund
4. Governmental Affairs, no underlings or structure listed.
September 24, 2013
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Jerry Brown on Sept. 18 announced the appointment of Martin Hoshino, 49, of Folsom as undersecretary of operations at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
He has held multiple positions at the department since 2003, including acting undersecretary of operations, undersecretary of administration and offender services, executive officer at the Board of Parole Hearings, and assistant secretary at the Office of Internal Affairs.
From 2000 to 2003, Hoshino was chief assistant inspector general at the California Office of the Inspector General, where he was assistant inspector general from 1999 to 2000. He held multiple positions at the California State Controller’s Office from 1988 to 1999, including project manager, agency telecommunications representative and staff analyst.
Hoshino earned a master’s degree in public administration and political science from UC Davis. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $174,996. Hoshino is a Democrat.”
May 2, 2013
http://www.vcstar.com/news/gov-brown-prepares-court-ordered-plan-to-reduce
“The Democratic governor intends to seek a delay of those steps while he appeals the ruling on overcrowding, which already has been upheld once by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He filed the plan after federal judges last month threatened to cite him for contempt it they find he is not following their previous order to cut the number of inmates.
As of last month, the prisons were at 150 percent of capacity, or about 9,000 more than the allowable number.
The plan to be submitted to the [federal] court had to be “self-executing,” meaning that the administration must be prepared to begin implementing it immediately, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Undersecretary Martin Hoshino recently told lawmakers.”
JusticeCalifornia
October 1, 2014
GREAT JOB connecting the dots, Sharon. Hoshino was a natural pick for the gambling barmaid and her Team George thugs. You can’t make this stuff up.
It appears from your research that Hoshino worked at the CA State Controller’s office (1988-1999), and at the Office of the Inspector General (1999-2003), meaning he had at least 15 years experience in official State oversight positions before he began working at the CA Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 2003. He was there for 8 long years by the time the 2011 audit was released in which “State Controller John Chiang found a lack of internal control policies and procedures at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), putting millions of public dollars at risk of fraud and misappropriation”.
And now our casino blackjack dealer/cocktail waitress who could not get a job out of law school and her handpicked CA Judicial Council minions have Hoshino managing all of the below involving the largest judiciary in the world?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jc_org_chart.pdf
1. Operations and Programs Division, COO Curtis Childs
2. Leadership Services Division, Chief of Staff Jody Patel
3. Administrative Division, CAO Curt Soderlund
4. Governmental Affairs, no underlings or structure listed.
Ummm. . . .can we please get the FBI and U.S. Dept. of Justice on the line?
Today’s moral of the story:
A. Never underestimate the power of those who have been wrongfully screwed by the CA Judicial Branch.
B. It is inevitable. The lid is going to blow off the pervasive corruption in the biggest judiciary in the world. It is only a matter of time.
JC
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
Tani and her traveling band re-enact the stabbing of a San Francisco citizen and the killing of a senator by a CA Supreme Court Chief Justice — who marries his client in a divorce case in which there was never a marriage (played by Tani); and is then killed by the bodyguard of a Federal justice.
SEE PICTURES: http://calbarjournal.com/October2014/TopHeadlines/TH4.aspx
What’s next on the road show? The re-enactment of the $500M heist from the court construction funds?
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
Commission okaying Judicial Perversion (CJP) finds:
“Woodward had sex with her in his chambers and in public places, used court computers to send her messages and passed sexually charged notes to her during court proceedings….Steiner had sex with one of the women in his chambers during the evening in early 2012 and the other in his chambers on multiple occasions that May, all during the day….In determining the judges should be censured rather than removed from the bench, the commission noted that both admitted wrongdoing and expressed remorse and contrition.”
http://calbarjournal.com/October2014/TopHeadlines/TH6.aspx
JusticeCalifornia
October 1, 2014
Once again, thanks Sharon. Great comments.
One just cannot get away from the fact that the foxes are guarding the henhouse. The CJP presents a case in point. . . .
Commission on Judicial Performance members Judge Erica Yew and Justice Ignazio Ruvolo have pending before them a Marin County CCP 170 file tampering complaint involving Beverly Wood and Kim Turner, and those who have covered for them.
It has been almost 4 months now, and the CJP still remains silent regarding this complaint except to say it is “under review”. Marin court victims of Wood, Turner and those who have covered for them remain twisting in the wind.
CJP chair Yew was appointed to the Judicial Council at the same time as Turner, and was therefore necessarily involved in the approval of the “Judicial Council” decision to give the legal green light to Turner’s order resulting in the mass destruction of child custody evidence contained in Marin Family Court Services working files while the Joint Legislative Audit of the Marin Family Court was pending, as well as the blocking of the state auditor from court files and personnel for almost a year while the mass document destruction was undertaken and key employees were “retired”. As I understand it (admittedly total hearsay), Yew was involved in at least one high-profile case in her home county where file tampering and file withholding was alleged.
CJP member Ruvolo compromised himself by signing off on multiple patently intellectually dishonest appellate decisions penned by Patricia Sepulveda in one of the pivotal Marin custody cases that brought the JLAC audit to Marin. He signed off on Sepulveda decisions that purposefully mis-characterized issues involving the Marin’s characterization of minor’s counsel’s fees as child support (thereby avoiding issuing a written appellate ruling on the subject which would have affected litigants in many CA counties), purposefully mis-characterized issues involving patently illegal practices of Marin Family Court services (thereby avoiding issuing a written appellate ruling on a subject that would have affected litigants in all CA counties), and purposefully mischaracterized issues involving a CCP 170 challenge of the controversial Marin judge who made bizarre rulings involving both of the above (thereby avoiding issuing a written appellate ruling on the specifics of what this controversial judge did). He did this notwithstanding the filing of Petitions for Rehearing pointing out the patent mis-characterizations by Sepulveda. And he did it while the possibility/reality of a JLAC audit of the Marin family court about these issues was pending. One more thing. The mass destruction of Marin County child custody evidence, in this above-mentioned case and others, was approved by the Judicial Council and undertaken by Judicial Council Member Kim Turner while a Petition for Review in this particular case was pending before the CA Supreme Court. I have gently alluded to Sepulveda’s intellectual dishonesty before, without specifics, but now that Ruvolo (who has an impressive CV) is in a judicial oversight position he deserves even more scrutiny than Sepulveda.
This comment is not about the above case (which is water under the bridge), but rather about how the past actions of Yew, Ruvolo, George and Sakauye– in promoting and/or protecting compromised judges and court officials in Marin– have contributed to the culture of unchecked corruption that has now led the Marin Superior Court to take the bizarre official position that it is perfectly OK to backdate orders and the register of actions such that no one (including the court of appeal) could possibly discern from the “official court record” the correct date an order was entered.
Let’s see what Yew and Ruvolo do about this interesting state of affairs, as CJP members. Let’s see what Judicial Council Chair Sakauye and the Judicial Council do, having had the issue referred to them by the Governor and AG, and having had it sit on their plate since delivery on June 12, 2014.
I know this is “noise” to some of you, really hard to read, and something some would dearly love to dismiss. Slap me upside the head with thumbs down, whatever.
But to those of us who have been living and working in this mess for decades, it is Exhibit “A” to the concern that the judicial branch operates without any effective checks and balances.
Wendy Darling
October 1, 2014
Judicial Branch incest at its finest.
Long live the ACJ.
Wendy Darling
October 1, 2014
Speaking of Judicial Branch incest: more double speak and revisionist “new math” from 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Things never change, including the hypocrisy. Published late today, Wednesday, October 1, 2014, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Judicial Council Tech Committee Walks Back IT Contract Numbers
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The ghost of fiascos past was awakened when a justice reported in late summer that California’s court bureaucracy in a time of great financial hardship had spent $156 million on information technology contracts. This week the head information officer for the courts tried to lay that ghost back down, saying the figures had been “misunderstood.”
The controversy stems from a report presented in August to the full Judicial Council by Justice Richard Huffman, chair of the council’s Accountability and Efficiency Committee. The report showed with tables and charts that the bureaucracy, formerly called the Administrative Office of the Courts, has spent $146 million for information systems consultants and roughly $10 million for IT consultants in the last fiscal year.
At a meeting of the Judicial Council’s Technology Committee, Chief Information Officer Mark Dusman dismissed the report as news that “drew a lot of oohs and ahs.” He then made a cursory bullet point presentation, claiming that the true number spent on tech contracts last year was only $12.6 million, less than one tenth of what Justice Huffman had reported.
Dusman said the biggest share of that amount was spent for work on the now-defunct Court Case Management System, a software described by judges as a “fiasco” and a “boondoggle” which cost the state a half-billion dollars and which at its peak was running through $200,000 a day.
The Technology Committee was formerly called the CCMS Internal Committee, and many committee members carried over, including its chair Judge James Herman.
Justice Huffman, who reported the $156 million expense, is on the accountability committee. He was not present at Monday’s tech committee meeting.
“It is sad but predictable that the committee has chosen to ignore the findings of Justice Huffman, a man who was the longest serving Council member in history, and a person we all know to be intimately and completely knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Council and their staff,” said Judge Maryanne Gilliard of Sacramento.
Gilliard is a director of the 500-member Alliance of California Judges. The group has attacked the court bureaucracy’s obfuscation over staffing figures and expenses, saying the agency has in the past hidden its contract figures to make it look like they employ fewer people and spend less on wages than they actually do.
In past years, the bureaucracy has stonewalled judges’ requests for information on technology contractors and the work they are hired to do. That criticism from fellow judges led Huffman’s committee to examine those contracts and conclude that the bureaucracy, now called the Judicial Council staff, had spent $156 million on technology contracts last year.
“Even a longterm insider of the Judicial Council can’t get a solid number,” said Gilliard. “Committees disagree with committees, all populated by handpicked members. This is a why an outside audit is absolutely essential. It was the only way the truth about CCMS finally came out.”
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved an audit of the Judicial Council and its staff in a vote approved by the Alliance and resisted by council staff director Steve Jahr who has since retired. The audit is due to completed in January.
At the tech committee’s Monday meeting, information officer Dusman said Justice Huffman’s committee included contracts that the staff did not classify as IT contracts, even though they have to do with technology. For example, Huffman’s committee included in its report contracts with IT service providers like Science Applications International Corporation, said Dusman.
Using a form of expression used by staff member on occasion and criticized by judges as incomprehensible technical jargon, Dusman said, “We don’t include it as an IT contract, nor do we include folks who are implementers, again usually fixed bid contract for a particular service — in this case, implementing a particular functionality.”
Science Applications International Corp. ran the Arizona data center that hosted CCMS data for some of the few courts that agreed to take on the cumbersome software system. The data center has been a separate of controversy, crashing on occasion. Some courts such as San Diego Superior refused to use the data center and at one point three years ago a multimillionaire cancer drug salesman, called a “white knight” by council members, tried to buy it.
He later backed out.
In his report, Huffman discussed not only the amount spent on IT contracts but also the length of time contractors were working. “Our committee ultimately was concerned about long-time use of consultants,” Huffman said.
“Some have been there more than 10 years . . . over time you should be concerned with instances where you have a consultant working as a consultant 10, 12, 15 years. It may be necessary but it ought to be the exception to the generalized rule. Hiring the employee may be better and more financially prudent.”
Huffman was indulgent in his August remarks however, noting several times that he did not expect the Judicial Council to do anything with his report other than consider it.
“We’re not suggesting anything be done with it other than it’s an issue important to the overall branch consideration,” he said, adding, “The technology people have the need for particular skill sets.”
“We simply raise it,” he concluded, “in our responsibility as being, I suppose, the appointed nitpickers for the Judicial Council.”
In answer to that point, Dusman said the staff is trying to move contract workers over to full-time positions, moving eight out of 18 positions to full time last year to save $600,000. “What’s left, the 10, are very specialized positions or there were other salary, lifestyle, or telecommuting issues. Our contractors can choose to work remotely, whereas Judicial Council staff has a relatively restrictive telecommuting policy in place,” he said.
Dusman added, “It’s a difficult issue to recruit for a boatload of people at one time. And there’s a political issue of adding a bunch of staff, even if it’s to save the branch money, there is a political issue of having a bunch of recruitments out on the market at the same time.”
At the Monday meeting, technology committee chair Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara also gave an update on the five courts in Orange County, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin and Ventura that are still using CCMS V3, saying the council is looking at “moving V3 courts off of V3 or moving to them picking up the costs themselves for V3.” He said the committee surveyed the five courts, and said the committee is planning a “one day workshop to see if we can’t bring them more in line” and “incrementally have the courts pick up the cost of the V3 systems.”
Since the demise of the troubled CCMS project, courts have been moving to off-the-shelf case management products, including the few that originally signed on to CCMS. Most have chosen Tyler’s Odyssey software, while Sacramento has gone with LT Court Tech for its criminal system and San Joaquin has chosen Oracle’s Justice Systems Inc.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/01/72025.htm
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
Wendy,
Metaphorically speaking “incest” seems a good description of what’s destroying the integrity of the California judicial branch.
Its not only the fuckers or their silent, shamed and fearful victims who aid the incest to continue. Its those in the family who remain silent of perverted crimes, and those who work to cover up the incest to protect the family’s reputation — who cause the perversion to continue for generations to come.
The Recorder reported that those outside the family on the CJP wanted to throw these two judges off the bench, but the CJP jurist members won out with only wanting to give them a public admonishment.
CJP’s Justice Ignazio Ruvolo is one of the 45 reviewing court justices up for re-election in Nov.
He serves as a poster child of the problems caused by willful blindness to egregiously deteriorated ethics in the branch.
In 35 days, the VOTERS have the ability to SHAKE-UP the MAKE-UP of the incestuously dysfunctional judicial branch family by voting “NO” retention of ALL balloted reviewing court justices on Nov 4th.
Think of it this way: What if the parishioners of the Catholic church could have voted to remove nearly 40% of all Bishops and Cardinals who committed and covered up acts of incest for years? How many children would have been saved from ruined lives?
Justice California, you write,
“Today’s moral of the story: A. Never underestimate the power of those who have been wrongfully screwed by the CA Judicial Branch. B. It is inevitable. The lid is going to blow off the pervasive corruption in the biggest judiciary in the world. It is only a matter of time.”
Yep! And thank you for all you and your associates do toward that end.
Dear All,
PLEASE vote a blanket “NO” retetion of all California justices on Nov 4th for the sake of the future integrity of the judicial branch family and the public they are here to serve.
If we’re lucky, maybe Gov. Brown will appoint some of the many judges who have retired out of disgust, as replacements for the ousted justices.
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
In case this was not made perfectly clear in my voluminous prior post:
I, like many others, strongly desire for everyone who is reading this to vote “NO” retention of ALL California justices who are on the November ballot — in order to cause a sweeping reform of California’s judicial branch.
Collectively, in one fell swoop, we can remove 40% of its justices who have participated or turned a blind eye to systemic fraud, waste and abuse in the judicial branch.
PLEASE, I emplore you. SHAKE-UP the MAKE-UP of the dysfunctional branch by voting a blanket “NO” on Nov 4th; and ask all your friends, family and associates to do the same.
The reality is, there is no BSA audit or legislator or governor who is going to remove the underlying problem of cronyism and blind eyes to cronyism in the branch.
Its up to YOU, the informed court employees and court watchers in the capacity of members of the voting public, to do it!
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
True to form and indicatative of stealth cronyism in the branch, an annonymous thumbs down to this post.
Lando
October 1, 2014
Honestly the above post is really out of touch. You want to throw out all the hardworking and decent Justices of the Court of Appeal because a handful have caused huge problems for our branch and the people we serve? In the world I live in we make decisions based on the merits and the facts and we should never engage in the unfair practice of blaming people for things they are not responsible for. Fairness is what we should all be about. Please everyone. This blog is not for personal attacks related to personal issues involving problems unique to places like San Diego or Marin. I thought the purpose of this site was to discuss the actions of the Judicial Council and the AOC and the adverse impact they have on the trial courts, our employees and the citizens we serve.
sharonkramer
October 1, 2014
Lando,
Thank you for replying with other than an annoymous thunbs down.
No. I would hate to see thrown out “all the hardworking and decent Justices of the Court of Appeal because a handful have caused huge problems for our branch and the people we serve”.
Unfortunately, direct evidence would indicate that there is no such thing as decent justices in the CA judicial branch who have not, at the very least, turned a blind eye to systemic ethics problems in the branch.
BTW, how did the RSF fundraiser for the re-election of the the judge with the worst judicial record in the state, go? Must have gone okay because she was re-elected after her challenger’s billboards were taken down by directive of an annonymous source.
Tell me again, what are you fighting for?
Wendy Darling
October 1, 2014
I agree, Lando.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
October 2, 2014
Tossing all justices makes no sense to me either. Sharon claims that all turn a blind eye to injustice while forgetting judicial ethics considerations like having the appearance of being fair and impartial. IMHO judges and justices dance a file line of bringing up issues within the branch as it stands against an onslaught of new rules being promulgated to silence them.
The OBT
October 2, 2014
Thanks Lando for speaking the truth.
sharonkramer
October 2, 2014
Wendy, can you name ONE California justice who you know for fact has not at the very least, turned a blind eye to fraud upon the court?
The OBT
October 2, 2014
Your anger and extreme claims aren’t helpful here or anywhere Sharon. We are seeking reform of the Judicial Council so that they stop wasting valuable taxpayer dollars. We are seeking a new and fair Judicial Council staff administration that is honest and ethical so that the many outstanding employees of 455 Golden Gate are treated fairly and with respect. We are seeking an end to the arrogant leadership of the small group of ” insiders” on the Judicial Council so that democracy is restored to the branch . We are seeking fairness to all and respect to all that work everyday in the trial courts trying to help serve the public we represent. Personal issues with any one Judge or Justice have no place here on a blog that has significant credibility with the legislature and public as a whole.
sharonkramer
October 2, 2014
OBT, I think you are right that my anger in my last post is not helpful.
Wendy, I owe you an apology for that. I’m sorry.
Going to read the rests of the posts and then respond further.
WR,
Sharon
Tony
October 2, 2014
Thank you OBT for these comments. I think they are spot on.
sharonkramer
October 2, 2014
Michael, you write,
“IMHO judges and justices dance a file line of bringing up issues within the branch as it stands against an onslaught of new rules being promulgated to silence them.”
OBT, you write,
“We are seeking an end to the arrogant leadership of the small group of ” insiders” on the Judicial Council so that democracy is restored to the branch . We are seeking fairness to all and respect to all that work everyday in the trial courts trying to help serve the public we represent. Personal issues with any one Judge or Justice have no place here on a blog that has significant credibility with the legislature and public as a whole.”
It seems correct to me, Michael, that California jurists have their hands tied when it comes to speaking directly of wrongs being committed in the branch — and the noose on their freedom of speech is getting tighter by the day. So, yes. I agree this is a contributing cause of (un)willful blindness to systemic problems.
OBT, If jurists are not free to speak of personal ethics issues of any one Judge or Justice in “the small group of ‘insiders’ on the Judicial Council”; then what means do jurists have to remove the compromised from their midst?
How would removing only one or two “bad” justices change anything in the branch?
How would it be done? By launching a campaign while naming those on the JC and CJP, personally?
You can’t do that because you are a judge. (although you all do seem to be able to hold fund-raisers and endorse re-election of sitting jurists)
I don’t think it would help change anything to just remove one or two via an ousting vote — which would never happen because the judges can’t promote that it should.
I think there is a real opportunity to change the branch for the public good by voting to shake-up its make-up on Nov 4th — without having to name the worst apples in the bunch.
I used to put judges on a pedestal and truly thought that the only way one moved up in the branch was by being of the highest moral character and having great wisdom. Sadly, I, like many others, no longer hold judicial officers in the same esteem.
There is a show premiering tonight called “Bad Judge”. Its about a CA Superior Court Judge who has sex in her chambers, sleeps around and issues contempt orders which are outrageous.
Twenty years ago, a show like this never would have aired. Now it appears to be art imitating life.
I don’t want the judicial branch to be thought of this way, do you? If not, change it by drastically changing its composition, IMHO.
JusticeCalifornia
October 2, 2014
Dear Lando
I have not met you but have GREAT respect for what you have to say. But I disagree with something you said in your above post, however gently, referencing Marin.
Problems in the branch exist for all those within the branch– judges, court employees, lawyers, litigants– everyone. The problems may be different, but many stem from the same root cause– control of the branch by and lack of oversight of a group of non-representative people handpicked by one person– the Chief Justice.
I do believe the ACJ exists as a result of that root problem.
I believe retaliation against AOC employees took place as a result of that root problem. Some of the perpetrators of the retaliation remain among Sakauye’s right hand people on Judicial Council staff.
And litigants and lawyers are taking on the Judicial Council right now because a lot of the problematic behavior in trial courts could not be sustained without support from the Judicial Council and what was formerly known as the AOC. I may talk about Marin County but what is happening there is not unique. Just take a look at the videotaped testimony of people from all walks of life, from all over the state who appeared at the Judicial Council public Elkins hearing in April of 2009. And look at the representatives from 16 counties who attended the first broken branch protest at the Judicial Council last month. After years of complaints to the Judicial Council, without relief, the grievance is now against those in “top leadership” or appointed by “top leadership” who are undeniably facilitating, promoting, or protecting what is happening.
Just two cases in point:
The residents of Shasta County complained for years to the Shasta Court, Chief Justice, and the AOC about assigned judge Jack Halpin. They delivered boxes of complaints to the AOC, and repeatedly requested a response and elimination of Halpin as an assigned judge, to no avail. Litigants and lawyers in other counties also complained about judges who had been “temporarily” assigned for years on end, without avail. It took a quo warranto lawsuit by a 79-year-old Shasta retiree on a fixed social security income, and a suggestion by Assemblymember Feuer that the assigned judges program be abolished altogether, to get responsive action by the Chief Justice and Judicial Council.
It took years of effort by litigants and advocates to get the Legislature to unanimously approve the state audit of the Marin Family Court regarding child custody cases. After approval, a Judicial Council member, with Judicial Council approval, destroyed relevant Marin Family Court child custody evidence and retired key Marin Family Court child custody personnel before letting the auditors in. And then the Judicial Council investigated itself, wrote a report approving its own behavior, and adopted the report approving its own behavior.
I am a litigator and understand exactly what is needed to try a case and preserve the record. Due process, intact evidence, an impartial judge who knows and follows the law, a court reporter, a good court clerk, and a clean, accurate, accessible “official court record”. When we are denied any one of those, a case can be compromised. When we are denied ALL of these in one fell swoop, by or in collaboration with Judicial Council members or appointees,what we really have is approval by the Judicial Council of the American equivalent of star chamber proceedings– and that is worth shouting about.
The NFL got blasted for not acting more quickly regarding a player who committed domestic violence.
Are the Chief Justice and other Judicial Council members of the biggest judiciary in the world to be held to a lesser standard than the NFL? No.
The Chief Justice and Judicial Council members are obliged to take prompt, appropriate action when on notice of illegal /inappropriate behavior by one of their members/appointees/employees.
And that is why I believe former Judicial Council Member/frequent Judicial Council appointee Kim Turner and what she has done/ is doing in Marin remains relevant on this Judicial Council Watcher blog.
Respectfully submitted,
JC (geez, this feels like a legal argument, lol)
sharonkramer
October 3, 2014
Lando, OBT and Tony,
The underlying problem which Justice California has so eloquently explained is that there are no checks and balances in the judicial branch when jurists and clerks falsifying court documents.
Instead of correcting the falsifications and stopping the damage they cause, wagons frequently get circled to conceal their existence. Its not an isolated incident occurring in Marin county. Its a systemic problem that has occurred in multiple county courts across the state.
In 2011, I turned to the Judicial Council over this matter occurring in San Diego county, only to receive even more retaliation — including false imprisonment, bodily harm and a fraudulent criminal record for seeking redress of grievances — all by hand of a jurist whose court had no subject matter jurisdiction. (he was removed from your courthouse, Tony, to downtown San Diego in 2012)
Like JC, I don’t speak out only on my own behalf. This is not about one judge in one court. This sort of thing does not happen throughout the state without reviewing courts and supervising clerks, at the very best, turning blind eyes; with the CJP and JC doing the same.
Justice California has spent well over a year obtaining replies from various state entities. They all say that the Judicial Council is the body ultimately responsible to address this perversity of justice occurring in the California courts.
I’m not sure about other counties, but in San Diego I have the falsified documents from four separate cases where they were falsified in matters which if not falsified, would expose an even greater societal fraud.
It appears that the Judicial Council is still attempting to avoid taking responsibility, even after JC and her associates were assured just weeks ago that they would.
So while I fully understand why honorable jurists may feel under attack by the discussion of this matter as they attempt to stop other wrongs occurring in the branch; and would like their appointments to be for life — so that the courts are not subjected to monied special interest groups buying judicial seats; there are several among the jurists’ midst who need to be removed from judicial office and removed from supervising administrative roles for the material document falsifications continuing in courts, statewide.
I know this is not your intent when trying to stop other frauds, but advocating — by various ways and means – that its not a relevant issue to restoring integrity from the top down by forcing the JC to address the systemic problem of court doc falsifications, seems to me to harm us all.
My feeling and that of many others is that if the court leadership will not cause change to this perverse practice — its up to the voters to cause change to the perverse leadership.
This is once again a matter where the Judicial Council has fallen down on their duty to the people and to you, the honorable employees of the judicial branch.
unionman575
October 2, 2014
Will those at the JC top scurry?
http://calpensions.com/
Bankruptcy judge: CalPERS pensions can be cut
October 2, 2014
😉