This past Monday we saw a glimpse of some positive movement when Martin Hoshino told the judicial council “I hope they feel as good about me as I feel about them a year from now, after I’ve had the luxury of making some zero-sum decisions that affect their workplace and their lives,”
For those who might be less informed a zero sum decision is where one wins at the expense of another. The SEC report disclosed that many AOC’ers were being paid bay area wages after moving to Sacramento where they’re supposed to be taking a 7% salary hit.
No action was taken.
The SEC report also disclosed something we disclosed well before the report was started: The AOC is top-heavy with a bunch of do-little-to-nothing managers whose sole purpose appears to be moving from meeting to meeting and accomplishing next to nothing in terms of real work – for both the AOC and the trial courts.
No action was taken.
The SEC report denoted that annual performance appraisals, which companies and government agencies typically use to justify both promotions and raises were not happening. In fact, the HR policies and procedures were largely ignored and are used only in a punitive way to justify management decisions after the fact. The whole AOC can ignore whole swaths of policies and procedures and the only time anyone will ever be held accountable is when they want to oust someone, at which time they will cite what was ignored when in fact everyone ignores it and no one is ever held accountable.
Again, no action was taken.
Somehow, the judicial council themselves managed to promote three individuals to the most senior management positions within the organization that produced a rousing “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me” not only from AOC employees but from most of the judicial branch as well as the state legislature.
Those people are Jodi Patel and her dog spot Curt Soderlund. One cannot promote Jodi without also promoting her dog spot. And Curt Child? After spending years misleading the legislature, his credibility in Sacramento was totally shot. They needed to pull him out of Sacramento. But by placing him in a management position overseeing the AOC as Chief Operating Officer they completely offset anyone taking his place in Sacramento because Curt was given an even more significant role in the organization.
How would we go about zero-sum decisions?
If you want any credibility in the rest of the judicial branch and in Sacramento, all three of the three stooges must be shown the door. Hire professional managers instead of a narcissistic psychopath, a barely functioning alcoholic and a pathological liar. Hoshino can do far better by walking out the AOC’s front door and grabbing the first three people that walk by.
Below the three stooges exist about 14 different division directors and another 14 assistant division directors and a slew of people with the title of senior manager or manager. All of that top-heaviness the SEC report reflected.
Our first question would be to these people “show us all of the annual performance appraisals for all of your respective staff from the time the SEC report was released to today”. Promote the ones that did their jobs and toss the rest. If you as a director or an assistant director, senior manager or manager cannot produce them, then obviously, you’ve not been doing your job and there’s the door.
Next question: Are you a boondoggler that has damaged the AOC’s reputation with your antics like my friends Jerry and Bert and ALL the people that kept on signing off on those Deloitte contract extensions? Are you a boondoggler that sole-sources all work to expensive vendors when others can do it for far less? Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
As far as line staff and supervisors, this is the level where work actually happens. Everything above them is a circle-jerk social club of bloated pensions, top of the line electronics, free parking and zero productivity because they are always meeting with each other.
Finally, we have internal audits and the office of the fraud, waste and abuse coordinator. You know, the guy that actually coordinates fraud, waste and abuse and makes it easier. This greaseball has undermined the trust of every AOC and court employee across the state. Erase the whole budget for that whole department and contract with the bureau of state audits for all of the services that this whole department provides. Never have I ever witnessed a watchdog who reported to the foxes as they raided the chicken coop. This guy is compromised and must go because all AOC employees do anyways is report to the bureau of state audits and circumvent him now. Might as well make it official….
Accurate or not, we’re getting the impression that Mr. Hoshino was hired for and intends to clean house. In doing so, he has the unique ability to erase 3/4 of the reason for our existence. The other quarter sits in the chief justices lap and she seems well seasoned at colossal management missteps like elevating Vickrey to demi-god status and putting the three stooges in charge while dropping a yes-ma’am figurehead at the top of the org chart that some refer to as Jahrhead whose never managed a court, much less over 800 misdirected employees. The latest judicial council appointments were’t that repulsive either but if as she says diversity and representation is important to her, the diversity should come from being elected by ones peers, not appointed by the chief justice.
The state auditor gave the feckless one quite a bit of breathing room by delaying the release of the AOC audit until January but you can take it to the bank that Mr. Hoshino has the pre-release sitting on his desk and it’s job number one for him to address those concerns prior to the release of that report. And if I were a manager or above at the AOC and Mr. Hoshino is truly serious about doing his job instead of another five years of window dressing, I’d be considering retirement or another position outside of the AOC because we think the pressure is there for real change.
As we said with respect to the chief justices 3 year blueprint – it was dead on arrival. And it was dead on arrival because all of the above has been mismanaged and remains unaddressed to the satisfaction of legislators and the rest of the judicial branch. Without cleaning house vigorously, her critics own the message and she’s just along for the ride and her inaction will be the sole reason the branch sees only token increases in funding.
We’ve been right about this for 4 consecutive years.
When all of that reorg is done and all of that management fat cut out of the equation, the chief justice would also be wise to take that savings and use it to backfill the tiny courts across the state that can’t make payroll without cutting employees. Without taking from her own judicial council budget she is saying – like she has repeatedly said to all courts statewide – “let them eat cake until the other two branches gives us more funding. “
And now that the cat is out of the bag as to shorter court hours not producing a dime of savings, it will be pretty effortless to look at the courts that are doing this and connecting the dots. Legislators who are getting heat from their constituents about these early closures already know that the false premise of savings exists to put pressure on legislators. So does the governor. So the grand plan isn’t working so well.
Crazy is when you do the same thing again and again expecting different results.
It’s time for change. At the council level and at the council administrative level. Five years of window dressing is enough.
unionman575
October 30, 2014
Actions speak louder than words.
😉
Nice work JCW.
wearyant
October 30, 2014
Excellent, JCW. I just wish I could’ve said all this! May the sum-zero stuff stop here now with our trial courts finally prospering over the fat-cat, top-heavy bureaucrats living large at all our expense. Time for the queen to leave along with her leftover ronnie crew.
Long live the JCW and ACJ.
courtflea
October 30, 2014
I’m sorry but I will believe it when I see it, the new director cleaning house. I hope John jud nick roasts in hell but I recently heard that curt S. From a very good source has some serious medical issues that cause him to appear intoxicated or out of it. I am no fan of the death Star but we have to be fair here. Whether he is capable for his job I have my doubts. He certainly is without a doubt a Jody lap dog.
my wish of course is that the new director will make a difference
But I Am Like Wendy d. I think it will happen when hell. Freezes over and we can all ice skate home. We shall see eh?
Lando
October 30, 2014
As everyone here knows I have huge concerns about the size and arrogance of the AOC. I found it however very troubling that Mr Hoshino would say in a cold and calculated manner that he would have the ” luxury” of making zero-sum decisions that would effect the workplace and lives of AOC employees. The “luxury” of making such decisions? Firing people is a ” luxury” ? I so distrust the people like J Hull and J Miller that appointed Hoshino that I fear this arrogant man will keep the very management team that has run our branch into the ground and fire AOC employees that are just doing the best they can day in and day out to meet the misplaced expectations of the insiders at 455 Golden Gate. Just go on to the Judicial Council website and link to their You Tube videos. I think if you view them you will share my concerns about the arrogant and self important manner of Mr Hoshino .
Wendy Darling
October 30, 2014
Right there with you, Lando.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
October 31, 2014
Thanks Wendy. I knew you would understand my concerns for the line employees of the AOC in stark contrast to the incompetent , arrogant and self important managers like Jody and the Curt’s. Pigs will fly over the moon before Hoshino does anything with Jody and the Curt’s because it won’t be a luxury firing any of the insiders at 455 Golden Gate. Thanks again J Hull and J Miller. You and your appointment of Mr Hoshino are the gifts that keep on giving.
Wendy Darling
October 31, 2014
It’s also likely that pigs will fly and hell will freeze over, at the same time, before Hoshino does anything about Sofa Man, aka, “Little Ernie”, either.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Cheryl Van Vliet
October 31, 2014
My goodness, as I was reading this I thought you were talking about the Contra Costa County superior court. Since the mid 90’s the court administrator has done nothing but hire, as the writer above puts it, incompetent, arrogant and self important managers with nothing to do except get their big paychecks. It is the bowels of the courthouse doing all the grunt work, afraid to say anything for fear of being fired. I’ve written it here before but I’ll do it again–I know that more than 50% of the dissolutions that have been finalized in this county since the new century are not legal. I know that at least 50% of the final orders for domestic violence are not legal. I could go on. But one more thing, I blame all of the judges for allowing this to happen.
annoyed
October 31, 2014
Sounds like El Dorado County Superior Court!
wearyant
November 4, 2014
Greetings to the lurking troll from El Dorado! 😀
wearyant
November 4, 2014
Ah-hem. I am referring to the “thumbs down” indicator, not to “annoyed.” Here’s hoping “annoyed” comments again on JCW.
sharonkramer
October 31, 2014
In his introductory speech to the JC on Monday, Mr. Hoshino made a statement that sent chills up my spine. Not in these exact words, he indicated that Speak With One Voice will continue in the California courts.
I’m so glad I took the time to go to SF for that meeting. I got a much better understanding of just how out of touch with reality that the CJ and the JC really are. (Plus I found this great little, inexpensive place to stay on the water in Sausilito!)
Who in their right mind would spend 15 minutes at the beginning of a public meeting talking about all the fun and prestigious places they have been on the taxpayers’ dime; while knowing that there are people in the audience about to speak of how they have lost everything, some including the lives of loved ones, because of dysfunction in the courts the JC/CJ claim to be dilligently overseeing?
It was pretty disgusting that so much time was spent on the mutual admiration society gushing over how wonderful they all are — while the public was told the meeting schedule was tight and they could therefore only speak of serious court problems for 1 minute each.
With that said, I do feel it is a step in the right direction that public comments were permitted on items not on the JC’s agenda. It was quite obvious that the JC general meeting does not offer enough time for the necessary public comment on items brought to their attention and in need of action.
Now that it is publicly known that the JC and CJ are aware of systemic problems regarding fraud upon the court, it seems they are going to have to set up a committee to address it. Under Penal Code 134, concealment of fraud upon the court/falsified court docs is also a felony.
Ex-AOC
October 31, 2014
Was employed at the “AOC” for 8.5 years. NEVER received a performance evaluation.
Oh, and the thoughts on the “three stooges” couldn’t be more accurate.
wearyant
October 31, 2014
I find the lack of performance evals so intriguing. Why not? Why would micro-managers such as these folks who measure even how much toilet paper judges use not utilize evals? The group formerly known as the infamous AOC never fails to fascinate. Al Capone was fascinating too.
Wendy Darling
October 31, 2014
Yeah, Ant. But Capone actually went to jail. The group formerly known as the infamous AOC have the Teflon free pass on breaking the law, including embezzling public funds.
Long live the ACJ.
wearyant
November 4, 2014
Maybe it’s time to get the IRS involved with this infamous entity formerly known as the AOC, if they haven’t already been notified, that is. The bookkeepers took down Al Capone; maybe this humble, hopefully trustworthy type can get the nefarious insiders. Thinking of you with affection, Bureau of State Audits! Don’t let the bastards grind you down, all!
Long live the ACJ!
katy
October 31, 2014
From ghosties and ghoulies and long-winded beasties and things that go bump in the courts, oh California voters, please protect us!
http://wp.me/plYPz-3Rl
Happy Halloween, y’all!
unionman575
October 31, 2014
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lifestyle/2014-10-31/before-the-courts/1776425132506.html
Before the courts
October 31, 2014, 05:00 AM By Susan Cohn Daily Journal
Tom Jung/Daily Journal
Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Presiding Judge of the San ateo County Superior Court.
A MESSAGE FROM THE COURT TO THE COMMUNITY. On Sept. 23, 2014, Hon. Robert D. Foiles, Presiding Judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court, issued the following message to the community regarding court funding, court workforce reduction, and access to justice.
“On behalf of the San Mateo County Superior Court I wish to thank the countless members of our community who wrote letters, made phone calls and lobbied the governor and Legislature to restore funding to the trial courts. Although the recently passed state budget did not provide the level of fiscal relief we had hoped, it will save some jobs and preserve access to justice that would have otherwise been lost.
“Unprecedented state budget cuts to the judicial branch over the past six years have been devastating to all California trial courts. Since 2008, over $1 billion has been cut from the judicial branch. Partial restoration in the past two years (just over 10 percent in true restoration dollars) remains woefully inadequate to sustain all essential court services. Throughout the state, presiding judges continue to speak out about the severe losses for state trial courts, our workforce and critical access to justice.
“In Los Angeles, Judge Wesley stated, ‘The fact is this year’s state budget is a disaster for access to justice.’ In Sacramento, Judge Hight stated, ‘We are operating, but we’re not serving the public very well.’ Recently, Santa Clara announced they will reduce their workforce by over 35 percent and close more courtrooms. Judge Walsh stated, ‘Unfortunately, the new trial court budget will lead to more courtroom closures, longer lines and greater delays in obtaining vital court orders.’ And we hear the same from San Diego, Shasta, Contra Costa, Fresno, Solano, Santa Barbara, Merced and other trial courts that plan to make further reductions.
“Here in San Mateo, we foresaw the potential effect of these reductions as early as 2007 — and we took action. Our judges and administrative leadership, together with our court staff, have worked diligently and in partnership with our unions and justice agencies to effectively utilize technology, create efficiencies and savings and consolidate our workforce to provide the best trial court services possible with the resources available. At their highest point, state cuts necessitated reductions of over 33 percent of our San Mateo Superior Court workforce. Our reductions totaled 130 positions; in 2008 we had 385, in the 2013-14 fiscal year we were at 255. These ongoing cuts have caused us to shutter court houses and centralize services to Redwood City, lay off staff and Commissioners, reduce calendars and cut public counter and phone hours.
“We purposefully implemented court service reductions in incremental steps, intending to soften the loss of important services even as we worked hard to avoid them. These actions have been extremely difficult — we did not want to take them — but we have communicated them openly and well in advance, acted responsibly and are living within the limits of our reduced state funding support. With much hard work, we have successfully restored six court staff positions this July.
“At the San Mateo Superior Court, we work with and for each other to achieve justice. Our disposition rate per judicial position (the number of court cases resolved per judicial officer) remains consistently among the highest for state trial courts. We remain committed to continuous improvement, creating efficiencies and effectively utilizing technology to maximize our productivity and court services, to benefit the public we all serve.
“This said, we continue to face significant internal and external challenges to providing essential justice. Six restored positions cannot cover the workload of the 130 that have been lost — even after all reasonable efficiencies and productivity measures are accounted for. This means that until reasonable levels of trial court funding are restored, some level of delay will almost certainly continue. Our lines will remain long, our hours open to the public remain reduced and the public will continue to experience significant delays. A number of areas in our clerk’s office remain stretched as we continuously work to allocate our workforce where it is most needed.
“Externally, many of our neighboring courts are faced with the challenges of further reducing services and the Judicial Branch as a whole is faced with another year of failing to effectively convince state leaders to provide essential court funding. As a result, justice remains at risk statewide. The fact remains that we’ve received back too little of what has been taken from the Judicial Branch through severe, disproportionate state cuts that have continued since 2008 and, as a result, our trial courts remain dangerously under-funded.
“Trial courts protect public rights, public freedom and public safety. They are relied upon to provide essential services and support for individuals, families and our community. I urge everyone to remain vigilant in reminding state lawmakers that a strong economy relies on a judicial system that works. Your continued support is essential as we strive to seek appropriate funding levels for the court.”
***
This message may read on the Court website at http://www.sanmateocourt.org. Comments regarding this message may be sent to Judge Foiles c/o Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Hall of Justice and Records, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063-0965 or to smsccomment@sanmateocourt.org.
Susan Cohn is a member of the State Bar of California. She may be reached at susan@smdailyjournal.com.
unionman575
October 31, 2014
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC MEANS Meeting Date:
November 6, 2014
Time: 2:45 – 3:00 p.m.
Public Call-In Number: 1-877-820-7831, Passcode 5893917
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ceac.htm
unionman575
October 31, 2014
The Chair of the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel having concluded that prompt action is needed, public notice is hereby given that the Court Interpreters Advisory Panel proposes to act by email between meetings on November 4, 2014 at 10 a.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.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/ciap.htm
wearyant
October 31, 2014
Good luck, court interpreters! May your value and worth be realized by the power-mongers. God speed, all, on this crazy night.
unionman575
October 31, 2014
http://WWW.UTSANDIEGO.COM/NEWS/2014/OCT/26/TP-SUPERIOR-COURT-SERVICES-CONSOLIDATING/
SUPERIOR COURT SERVICES CONSOLIDATING
By U-T San Diego5:11 a.m.Oct. 26, 2014
If you’re planning on filing certain appeals and small claims actions in the county’s Superior Court branches, you’re going to soon have to head downtown.
Ongoing budget cuts to the state’s judicial branch are prompting the closure of some divisions in the Kearny Mesa, El Cajon, Chula Vista, and Vista courthouses.
• Starting Dec. 22, the small claims business office in Kearny Mesa will be closed. And beginning Jan. 5, all small claims hearings assigned there will be transferred to the downtown San Diego branch at 220 W. Broadway.
• Effective Jan. 5, all civil and family appeals around the county will be transferred to the downtown courthouse. Future filings must be made there, as well.
• Also starting Jan. 5, all criminal appeals from El Cajon and Chula Vista will move downtown. Criminal matters include felonies, misdemeanors, traffic and infractions.
The consolidations are the product of some $42 million in reductions to the state’s court system over the past five years. An additional $9 million is expected to be cut in funding over the next two fiscal years, court authorities said. Already, probate branches have closed and some civil courtrooms have been shuttered.
Court officials are asking for the public’s input on these changes before implementing them. Comments can be sent through the website at sdcourt.ca.gov on the “Invitation to comment” page, or mailed to: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 220 W. Broadway, Executive Office, San Diego, CA, 92101, attention Michael Roddy.
unionman575
October 31, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article3326044.html
wearyant
October 31, 2014
tricks for treats. Very timely, UMan. Thanks for posting. At least these rats are cute.
JusticeCalifornia
November 1, 2014
unionman, thank you for always keeping us informed about what is going on regarding meetings and courthouses and other JC matters.
Really funny video, hits the mark.
unionman575
November 1, 2014
http://www.losbanosenterprise.com/2014/10/31/222258_subcontractors-to-start-bidding.html?sp=/99/114/&rh=1
Subcontractors to start bidding on courthouse project
By Corey Pride
cpride@losbanosenterprise.comOctober 31, 2014
The relocation of the Robert M. Falasco Justice Center appears on track for 2015.
Bids open next week for subcontractors to construct Los Banos’ new courthouse.
Keby Boyer, spokeswoman for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, said bids will be accepts from Nov. 8 through the end of the month, putting the project on schedule to be built in the late spring of 2015.
“It’s certainly on schedule,” Boyer said. “The Los Banos courthouse is categorized as ‘immediate need.”’
In 2009, the state authorized $32.6 million to be spent in Los Banos on construction of a court building with two courtrooms, with room to expand to four. Boyer said the latest state figures have the courthouse being built for $26.3 million.
The Robert M. Falasco Justice Center, where court is held now, occupies about 5,370 square feet of its 15,000-square-foot building. The one-courtroom structure is owned by Merced County and is shared by the Sheriff’s Department, probation department, the county clerk and the public defender. The district attorney’s office is in a portable building at the rear of the permanent structure. A feasibility report identified numerous deficiencies at the facility, which was built in 1980.
The Administrative Office of the Courts detailed some deficiencies of the facility on its website.
“The building lacks a jury assembly room, so current juror check-in and assembly take place in the hallways. The building lacks secure hallways and holding cells adjacent to courtrooms, so in-custody defendants use the same hallways as the public and court staff. The court’s space is also not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act,” the website states.
In 2012, many courthouse projects were cut by state lawmakers, shifting about $600 million in Long Beach court expenses to the state’s courthouse construction budget. The projects that remained include new courthouses in Los Banos, Sonora and Modesto.
The new Los Banos court will be built near the intersection of G Street and Mercey Springs Road.
Councilman Tom Faria was appointed by Mayor Mike Villalta to monitor the court project. Faria said he’s happy to see progress being made.
“I’m pleased to see it going forward, there’s a great need in Los Banos and the surrounding communities,” Faria said.
The Robert M. Falasco Justice Center has 330 visitors daily, according to the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Judicial Council Watcher
November 1, 2014
One should question both the need and wisdom of building a courthouse in a place that it sinking about a foot per year due to groundwater depletion. Should our current drought continue or get worse or regulations are put in place to limit groundwater pumping or they just run out of groundwater, it’s conceivable that this courthouse could be shut down when whole swaths of the san joaquin valley become ghost towns due to a lack of water.
So you think it couldn’t happen ? Consider the recently built porterville courthouse.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-tulare.htm#ad-image-0
This courthouse has 9 courtrooms compared to the two courtrooms of the old courthouse. The court has already made noise that amounts to not being able to afford to operate out of this newer, more expensive to operate courthouse in their own pleas for better judicial branch funding.
A mile east of this new courthouse exists the city of East Porterville where the wells have run dry, leaving over 7000 residents and 300 homes without water.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/08/27/porterville-residents-without-water-as-wells-go-dry-during-california-drought/
unionman575
November 1, 2014
unionman575
November 1, 2014
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article3505269.html
sharonkramer
November 1, 2014
Audio of Oct 27th Judicial Council meeting, public comment section. Go Justice California!
http://wpc.1a57.edgecastcdn.net/001A57/eop/jc/102714/05-public.mp3
JusticeCalifornia
November 5, 2014
The terribly misleading written public comment defending Marin submitted for the October 27-28 JC meeting– with the attached misleading statement of Kim Turner and Marin Judge Boren– has been removed from the Judicial Council website.
wearyant
November 1, 2014
Thanks for posting the audio of the public comments! Very disappointing how the council seemed more intent on keeping the limits on the commenters rather than actually *hearing* what was being said by these people who are in obvious pain. It was shameful.
Long live the ACJ!
Alan Ernesto Phillips
November 5, 2014
Hear, hear, weary ant…
[Today is DAY 1325 for my youngest daughter and me…]
unionman575
November 2, 2014
http://www.smmirror.com/articles/Opinion/Arnold-Schwarzeneggers-Real-Estate-Deal-Haunts-California/41602
sharonkramer
November 2, 2014
Good find, Unionman. To quote:
“So no one now can be sure who will ultimately own the red granite Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles, the Public Utilities Commission and state Supreme Court buildings in San Francisco and the Department of Justice building in Sacramento, to name a few landmarks involved.
The sale of buildings in Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego is not exactly a ghost, largely because a San Francisco judge decided about a year ago that the potential buyers’ claim their deal was done before Brown could quash it deserves a full court trial. That trial will probably open within the next month.
The fact these companies are still pursuing the deal four years after Brown tried to end it is pretty good evidence they had figured to reap healthy profits from the steady stream of rents Schwarzenegger committed the state to pay for at least 30 years after the deal was done. They also planned to fire most union maintenance workers now employed in the buildings.
Schwarzenegger tried hard to sign as many papers on the deal as possible before leaving office, since Brown had expressed great skepticism about the sale while campaigning in 2010.
Rooting hard for the deal to be consummated is the firm of Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis, whose executives contributed more than $79,000 over the years to various Schwarzenegger campaign committees. CBRE stands to get $16 million in commissions if this happens, a pretty nice return on its political investment.”
CB Ellis = Regent Richard Blum, husband of Dianne Feinstein.
unionman575
November 3, 2014
“RFP” for an (EMS) or database and accompanying professional services to support a secure, web-based, EMS solution for use by “CFCC”.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/27557.htm
unionman575
November 3, 2014
unionman575
November 3, 2014
I got a friend that’s a Contractor….you might see some DIRT around here real soon
;)…
http://www.courts.ca.gov/11576.htm
Sign up for procurement alerts
To join our email list of alerts and announcements related to requests for qualifications and proposals for courthouse construction and renovation projects, please send a request to capitalprograms@jud.ca.gov containing the following information:
• Name
• Title
• Firm name
• Discipline (architecture, engineering, construction management, general contractor, etc.)
• Email address
• Postal address
• Phone numbe
unionman575
November 4, 2014
November 7, 2014 Meeting (Closed)
12:15-1:30 p.m.
Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee
http://www.courts.ca.gov/collabjusticecomm.htm
unionman575
November 4, 2014
November 10, 2014 (Teleconference Meeting)
4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Public Call In Number: 877-820-7831 / Passcode: 3511860 (listen only)
Judicial Council Technology Committee
Purpose:
Oversees the council’s policies concerning technology and is responsible in partnership with the courts for coordinating with the Administrative Director of the Courts and all internal committees, advisory committees, commissions, working groups, task forces, justice partners and stakeholders on technological issues relating to the branch and the courts.
Date Established:
April 2011 (as CCMS Internal Committee); officially renamed with a new purpose as the Judicial Council Technology Committee in June 2012.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/jctc.htm
unionman575
November 4, 2014
Audio Recording
Members of the public seeking to make an audio recording of the meeting must submit a written request at least two business days before the meeting. Requests can be e-mailed to jctc@jud.ca.gov.
sharonkramer
November 5, 2014
Justice California,
If the JC website does not contain complete info of public comments they received, send them an email requestiong correction to the record. Here’s my correspondance with them from Oct of 2013 when the same thing happened. http://freepdfhosting.com/bd7ed94dfc.pdf
Wendy Darling
November 5, 2014
Published today, Wednesday, November 5, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Court of Appeal Expresses Due Process Concern Over Lack of Court Reporter at Civil Motion Hearing
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The lack of a court reporter at a civil motion hearing raises due process concerns, particularly where the trial judge relies on reasons stated in open court but does not explain those reasons in a written order, the Court of Appeal for this district said yesterday.
Div. Seven ruled that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Russell S. Kussman erred in sustaining a demurrer to one cause of action but correctly sustained a demurrer to the other in a suit for invasion of privacy. Justice Laurie Zelon said the lack of a transcript did not preclude review, because both conclusions “were both readily apparent from a review of the operative complaint and the demurrer.”
The justice cautioned, however:
“[W]e view this case as an exception. We remain profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court.”
The lawsuit was brought by Jordan Maxwell, who has described himself online as an expert on the occult and similar subjects. Maxwell claimed that the defendant, Josef Dolezal, had entered into a business relationship with him, only to take over Maxwell’s website and used the plaintiff’s name and image without permission, taking advantage of plaintiff’s celebrity and preventing plaintiff from using his own name and likeness to sell photographs and videos.
Maxwell alleged that Dolezal breached the contract, under which the plaintiff was to assign his intellectual property rights to the defendant in exchange for free housing, free food, and half of all monies obtained by exploiting the rights. He said he “never received money, food and housing was terminated in 2011.”
Maxwell also claimed that any permission he gave to Dolezal to use Maxwell’s name and likeness was invalid, because Maxwell had a contract with a manager, and was precluded from entering into contracts without the manager’s approval.
After sustaining two demurrers to the original complaint with leave to amend, Kussman sustained a third demurrer without leave, resulting in the dismissal of the action.
According to the minute order:
“For the reasons stated in open court, and as set forth in defendant’s moving papers, it appears that plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are not only vague and internally inconsistent, but are also not actionable. The gravamen of his contentions relate to an agreement that he allegedly entered with defendant that he himself describes as ‘unauthorized’ and ‘unallowable’ because of a contract that he had with his manager. In essence, plaintiff is alleging that defendant failed to protect him from himself. In whatever manner the causes of action are framed, there are insufficient facts or allegations supporting a contractual or tort duty to the plaintiff that was breached by the defendant.”
Zelon, writing for the Court of Appeal, however, said the breach of contract claim pled all of the required elements.
The privacy claim, on the other hand, failed to state a cause of action either at common law or under Civil Code §3344, the justice concluded, because the allegation that his agreement with defendant was “unauthorized” did not amount to an assertion that he did not give actual consent.
The case is Maxwell v. Dolezal, B254893.
http://www.metnews.com/
Long live the ACJ.