Here at JCW a sincere thanks goes out to the First District Court of Appeals in denying Jacobs Engineering Group (and subsidiaries) petition for a rehearing. (link) Hopefully they’re dumb enough to take it to the Supreme Court and lose even more attorneys fees.
Since the case between the Judicial Council and their two unlicensed contractors was a no-brainer from the start, it is important that the judicial branch demonstrate for the benefit of all Californians, that there are no exceptions. Not even judicial branch contractors should be exempt from our contractors licensing laws. Moreover, the court issued some important modifications in their order about money due the vendor after they were sued upping the ante by a few million dollars.
Unfortunately this does not resolve yet another looming question with respect to the unlicensed contractor lawsuits. Not too long ago Dennis Hererra, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco was quoted as saying that the city did not enter into a confidential settlement because he could not do so as a public entity. (link)
Which begs the question: How did the Judicial Council manage to enter into a confidential settlement with Aleut Global Solutions, LLC, who was never eligible to get a contractors license to begin with? How much public money was recovered or given away? What were the penalties levied against an entity that was never eligible for a contractors license? Much like the Jacobs matters millions were at stake. Did some insiders take payoffs to drop the action? How could this settlement ever be considered confidential when millions of dollars of public money was at stake? The Judicial Council’s public information email portal has no answers to these legitimate questions.
Unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court, the matter goes back to San Francisco Superior Court for a “substantial compliance” hearing. This would be the same building where “Team Jacobs” uniformed personnel, paid by ABM and managed by Jacobs worked for many years.
A lack of substantial compliance could unquestionably be ascertained by asking the court themselves to look at their own records such as business cards, proposals, studies, email, etc. so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out given that right across the street there are also hundreds of lbs of evidence that would represent a marked lack of substantial compliance. Even on this website there is a pile of documents that would demonstrate a marked lack of substantial compliance. This should be an easy win for the Judicial Council but we’ve seen them mess up wet dreams before, haven’t we?
Judicial Council Watcher 
unionman575
September 17, 2015
Nice work JCW.
😉
unionman575
September 17, 2015
If a new courthouse were to be built, who will staff it? There is no staff.
“Staffing is down by 21 percent, from 236 full-time employees pre-recession to 179 today”
😉
The JC just want’s to build build build. The money to staff it and operate it will appear by “magic” if they build it. Yeah right.
😉
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/local_news/ongoing-budget-shortfall-plagues-county-courts-slowing-cases-and-limiting/article_d360bab8-5cdd-11e5-a436-4b28e20cf59a.html
Courting Disaster
Ongoing budget shortfall plagues county courts, slowing cases and limiting access.
Posted: Thursday, September 17, 2015 12:00 am
Ongoing budget shortfall plagues county courts, slowing cases and limiting access.
by Sara Rubin
It’s presidential campaign season, meaning it’s time to talk about whether government should be run more like a business. Marla Anderson, presiding judge of Monterey County Superior Court, says that might be smart in some areas of government, but there’s a key difference in the court system: It’s obligated to absorb everyone who files a lawsuit or gets charged with a crime.
“A school can say a class is full,” Anderson says. “We cannot turn away our customers. Our doors are open to the public. We can’t restrict access to justice.”
That’s according to the Constitution, but not budget constraints. This year, Monterey County Superior Court is 12 percent under-budget, and its reserve is 16 percent under-budget.
Staffing is down by 21 percent, from 236 full-time employees pre-recession to 179 today. And the courthouses themselves need some love.
😉
The King City courthouse is indefinitely closed. The replacement South County courthouse planned for Greenfield is on the California Judicial Council’s “indefinitely delayed” list. The staff elevator in the Monterey courthouse has been broken since 2012. A small annex courthouse, across the street from the main Salinas courthouse, can’t handle most felony cases because there’s no secure entry for inmates.
The city of Greenfield donated $1.5 million worth of land to the state, and spent $3.5 million building sidewalks and extending roads to make the new South County courthouse possible. “It was ready for shovel in the ground,” Anderson says.
In 2012, that courthouse, along with 10 others in the state, was placed on the “indefinitely delayed” list. Anderson helped approve a downsized $30 million project, reducing the number of courtrooms from three to two, cutting estimated construction costs by $19 million, but still the project languishes.
Greenfield Mayor John Huerta is scheduled to meet Sept. 24 with Judicial Council Capital Program Officer William Guerin in San Francisco. Huerta will ask him to push the project forward.
“The need is now,” Huerta says. “Everyone in South County needs to travel to court.” He says people opt to pay traffic tickets instead of challenge them because of the long haul to Marina, and child care is difficult for people who need to attend family law hearings in Monterey.
There is some good news on the court-funding front. Monterey County Superior Court teamed up with two other counties – Napa and Santa Clara – to share the administrative costs of launching a new web-based document filing system.
That system is expected to go live Oct. 13 for civil, small claims, family law and all other filings except criminal court, which will come a year later. By spring, court officials expect their courtrooms to be mostly paperless. (If you’re a lawyer or representing yourself in court, you’ll still have to file hard copies, but then those will be scanned, meaning you can view your file – and whatever documents your opponent has filed – on a screen in the courthouse without waiting for attorneys and clerks to pass around your case file.)
And that broken elevator, down for three years, is scheduled for repair works starting in November. “It’s just an old elevator,” Anderson says.
wearyant
September 17, 2015
“Hopefully they’re dumb enough to take it to the Supreme Court and lose even more attorneys fees.”
=====================================
Their arrogance will take it to the next level, I’m guessing. They think differently than we commoners living amongst the heaving unwashed who must use common sense or perish.
Long live the ACJ and JCW.
wearyant
September 17, 2015
Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera (2015) , Cal.App.4th
[Nos. B258563, B258648.
Second Dist., Div. Two.
Aug. 18, 2015.]
JEFF TRACY, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF PICO RIVERA, Defendant and Respondent.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. VC063151, Thomas I. McKnew, Jr., Judge.)
(Opinion by Ashmann-Gerst, Acting P.J., with Chavez, J., and Hoffstadt, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
John L. Dodd & Associates, John L. Dodd, Benjamin Ekenes; and Darryl J. Paul for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Call & Jensen, Wayne W. Call and Todd C. Bouton for Defendant and Respondent. {Slip Opn. Page 2}
OPINION
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J.-
This appeal follows a bench trial in which the trial court found that a general contractor, appellant Jeff Tracy, Inc. doing business as Land Forms Construction (Land Forms), did not have a valid license while performing work on a project for respondent City of Pico Rivera (the City). The court thus ordered Land Forms to disgorge all compensation paid to it by the City–the amount of $5,487,370.05. Land Forms contends the judgment must be reversed because the trial court improperly denied it a jury trial on the issues of whether it had a valid license and the amount of disgorgement. We agree that Land Forms was entitled to a jury trial on these issues, and therefore reverse the judgment. However, we find that Land Forms is not entitled to any apportionment as a matter of law.
Copyright © 1993-2015 AccessLaw
sharonkramer
September 17, 2015
Is anyone investigating the alleged kickbacks yet?
Here’s the original complaint against Aleut from 2009 filed by Peter Krause of the AG on behalf of the JC:
Click to access aleut.complaint.pdf
So how does that work if the AG’s clients were taking kickbacks while contracting with unlicensed contractors? Does she prosecute her own clients?
Wonder how that confidentiality agreement came to be and who signed it on behalf of the JC w/the AG acting as legal counsel?
Here’s the notice of Mr. Krause’s newest position in the Governor’s office.
12-15-2014
SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced the following appointments.
Peter Krause, 45, of Sacramento, has been appointed legal affairs secretary in the Office of the Governor, where he has served as chief deputy legal affairs secretary since 2013. Krause served as supervising deputy attorney general at the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General from 2011 to 2012, where he served as a deputy attorney general from 2007 to 2011. He was an attorney at the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts from 2005 to 2007 and a litigation associate at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton LLP from 1996 to 2005, where he was a litigation clerk from 1991 to 1996. Krause earned a Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School Los Angeles. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $163,212. Krause is registered without party preference.
Michael Paul
September 17, 2015
That’s the original “no meat on the allegation bones” complaint that Krause rushed to file so he could cut off any chance of me filing a false claims suit.
Now how much money do you think the state would have in its coffers today if I had been allowed to proceed under a treble damages false claims action due to years of AOC inaction, even after they found out they were unlicensed?
Terry Francke
September 17, 2015
Hi there, JCW. We may want to request a copy of that “confidential” settlement — or is it two? Do you have more information on the case(s)?
Terry Francke Californians Aware
>
Michael Paul
September 17, 2015
Hi Terry,
I was shocked and made the inquiry myself with the AOC about the AGS lawsuit dismissal and the “confidential settlement.”
The law at the time would not permit an LLC to qualify for any contractors license. That has since been changed and now LLC’s can get contractors licenses. At the time I identified Aleut as not having a contractors license, this was an open and shut case.
There should have never been any confidential settlement. Rather, it should have been a publicly disclosed settlement that would then have allowed the contractors state license board to take additional action. Having already had a court of law rule on the civil matter of their licensure, it would have paved the way for the CSLB to file criminal charges.
The whole thing wreaks of public corruption.
sharonkramer
September 18, 2015
What it wreaks of is a classic example of “too big to jail” for defrauding the public.
Is Governor Brown aware that his legal affairs secretary facilitated an unlawful confidential settlement agreement between the Judicial Council and an NGO, when working at Attorney General’s office?
Judicial Council Watcher
September 17, 2015
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Case Number: CGC 09 495035
Title: JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, VS. ALEUT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC et al
Cause of Action: CONTRACT/WARRANTY
Judicial Council Watcher
September 17, 2015
I should add: The case was dismissed with prejudice a few mos after a settlement conference.But it was dismissed with prejudice because the Judicial Council allegedly settled the matter – but the confidential settlement involving millions of dollars in public funds is the oddity here. One would think that 1) As a public entity, a confidential settlement over millions of dollars should not be in the cards and 2) that there would be some sort of penalty for being an unlicensed contractor but this was a civil action. When Yen inquired with pubinfo they (pubinfo) disclosed the confidential settlement part.
unionman575
September 17, 2015
It’s simply “confidential” lol.
😉
unionman575
September 18, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/cfac.htm
September 25, 2015 Courthouse Cost Reduction Subcommittee Meeting (Teleconference and WebEx)
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Public Call-in Number: 1-877-820-7831, Passcode: 7004216
😉
WebEx Information: Click here to join WebEx: https://calcourts.webex.com/mw0401lsp13/mywebex/default.do?service=1&siteurl=calcourts&nomenu=true&main_url=%2Fmc0901lsp13%2Fmeetingcenter%2Fmeetinginfo%2Fmeetinginfo.do%3Fsiteurl%3Dcalcourts%26confID%3D3879276540%26Action%3DMI%26PW%3D%26FrameSet%3D2%26Host%3DQUhTSwAAAAKL1hOsOdcFF3MNFOs_cvikN1ZFdRrElhbvL2jhTmpWbtxYorF3nilfVnAv2tknxFCytBZUYiYwK7cyaQkZfW0L0%26UID%3D3344041647&UUIDFromJAction=3344041647
(Meeting number 927 559 111)
😉
sharonkramer
September 21, 2015
More from Kamala. I doubt if anyone on this board is interested in being an intern for her US Senate campaign. But should we send her the facts that have alread been checked, checked and rechecked of how she has not done Jack #@$ to stop the frauds in the CA courts — and as a result, would most likely being even more useless as a US Senator to help the people of California?
Begin forwarded message:
“Friend,
Team Kamala is looking for hard-working, enthusiastic interns for our LA and SF offices. You should be highly motivated, detail-oriented, and posses strong written, verbal, and organizational skills, while having a strong work ethic to complete tasks on a fast-moving deadline.
The campaign is a hands-on experience. You’ll help with research and analysis, database maintenance, fact checking, content editing, and fundraising. It’s an excellent opportunity to learn about Kamala’s U.S. Senate race by working directly with the campaign staff. If this is your first experience in politics, not to worry! Training for all aspects of the intern program will be provided.
If you’re available to work a minimum of three full days or 22 hours per week, please send a cover letter detailing your interest and qualifications along with a resume to internships@kamalaharris.org. Please be sure to put “#TeamKamala Intern” in the subject line.
We hope to hear from you!
Team Kamala
P.S. Not looking for an internship? Please share this with someone who might be, and stay tuned for more opportunities to join #TeamKamala!”
unionman575
September 22, 2015
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/flag-on-the-play-expired-contractor-s-84662/
Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!
😉
9/22/2015
By Yas Omidi | Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
It’s football season again. Which means, of course, that in addition to touch downs and field goals, you’ll also see hooting and hollering when the ref throws down a yellow flag signaling that a foul has been committed.
In Judicial Council of California v. Jacob Facilities, Inc., Case Nos. A140890, A141393 (August 20, 2015), The California Court of Appeals for the First District threw down its own yellow flag under the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031, finding that a contractor was required to disgorge all monies received on a project – to the tune of a whopping $18 million – when its parent company allowed the subsidiary’s contractor’s license to lapse when it rebranded a new company to perform the work of the old company but never formally assigned the contract. I think someone in marketing may be in big trouble.
😉
Instant Replay
In Jacob Facilities, the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”) entered into a three-year maintenance contract (“Contract”) with Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Facilities”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs”). Under the terms of the Contract, Facilities represented and warranted that it held a California contractor’s license and agreed to maintain all licenses required for its performance under the Contract. Facilities also agreed that it could not assign the Contract without the Judicial Council’s written consent.
At the time Facilities entered into the Contract and began performing work, Facilities was properly licensed. However, during the course of the project, Jacobs dissolved Facilities as part of a “rebranding initiative” and internally assigned administration of the Contract, the employees responsible for performing the Contract, and the compensation received from the Judicial Council under the Contract to a newly formed subsidiary, Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Management”), all without the Judicial Council’s knowledge or consent. In the process, Jacobs caused Management to obtain a contractor’s license but allowed Facilities’ license to expire. Nonetheless, Facilities continued as the signatory under the Contract, executed amendments to it, issued invoices and received payments, and maintained in its own name the insurance and bond required under the Contract.
When the Judicial Council discovered that Facilities had been unlicensed for almost a year, it sued Facilities for violation of the Contractor’s State License Law (“License Law”) and for disgorgement under Business and Professions Code section 7031. In total, the Judicial Council sought disgorgement of some $18 million it had paid Facilities for unlicensed work!
At trial, however, a jury found that the effect of the expiration of Facilities’ contractor’s license was de minimus and that the Judicial Council was unharmed because Facilities was licensed at the time it performed work under the Contract and Management was licensed at the time it performed work under the Contract.
The Judicial Council appealed.
Official Call
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. According to the Court, any failure of compliance “whether or not technical or de minimis” is a violation of the License Law. By continuing to serve as the contracting entity under the Contract after the internal assignment of the Contract for the work requiring a contractor’s license, the Court explained, Facilities continued to act in the capacity of a contractor and was thus required to be licensed until the time it was relived of this role by the assignment. Because Facilities was unlicensed for part of its contract performance, the entire $18 million it had received in compensation (note: even the compensation it had earned while it was licensed) was subject to disgorgement under Business and Professions Code section 7031.
While the License Law allows a contractor who has failed to strictly comply with the License Law to avoid such forfeiture if a court determines that the contractor substantially complied with the License Law, explained the Court of Appeals, in order to demonstrate substantial compliance, Facilities would have to show (1) that it was licensed prior to performing under the contract, (2) that it acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain its license, (3) that it was unaware of any failure of licensure upon performance, and (4) that it acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate its license when it learned it was invalid.
While the Court of Appeals remanded the case to give Facilities a chance to show whether it substantially complied with the License Law, the writing appears to be on the wall, as the likelihood of Facilities being able to to show that it acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain its license, that it was unaware of any failure of licensure upon performance, and that it acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate its license when it learned it was invalid, appears slim indeed.
Post-Game Wrap Up
We’re less likely to chuck the chips at the TV on any given Sunday when the flag on the play is for an ugly foul (say, unnecessary roughness) than when it’s for something more technical (say, delay of game by a nanosecond). But when it comes to contracting, the Court of Appeal’s message in Jacobs Facilities is clear: If you’re required to hold a contractor’s license to perform work in the California, you dang well better, and this includes during corporate reorganizations where a “new” company takes over the work of an “old” company, even if you’re using the same personnel.
😉
😉
wearyant
September 22, 2015
Good article, UMan. Thanks for posting. De minimis? Yeah, right. It certainly was to the elitists. They thought new logos on tee shirts solved the problem. Gee, life is sure easy when you have no moral compass! (Creeps!)
katy
September 22, 2015
Clever writing. Where’s the part about the Judicial Council’s quarterback being investigated for over-inflating the ball?
wearyant
September 22, 2015
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2015/09/22/quarterly-rent-report-confirms-there-are-zero-affordable-neighborhoods-for-renters-in-s-f/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s way past time for the spoiled fat-cat elitists to move to Sacto.
Maxrebo5
September 23, 2015
The top exec at VW resigned today amid a huge scandal for the car company. I own one of those VW TDI cars myself and am not pleased about VW’s deception in calling them “clean diesels” to trick consumers. What does this VW corruption story have to do with CA Courts? Not much except one thing that comes to mind.
Shouldn’t VW create an award in Winkerkorn’s honor now and name a conference center after him? That was the protocol for cultural reform followed by Tani Cantil-Sakauye when Bill Vickrey was forced to resign for mismanaging CCMS back in 2011. Notice Tani did not mention those two acts on her part in her timeline of so called reforms to CA Courts (but she did do both of those things I assure you). Did she forget?
http://www.courts.ca.gov/judicialcounciltimeline.htm
The truth is there have been no real reforms since Tani was appointed Chief by Ron George. Like Ron George she makes all appointments to the Judicial Council so she can control all policy making decisions even if they are no longer logical.
I say Judicial Council votes are a rigged game to get set results the Chief wants and that the structure is totally corrupt. The US Department of Justice or the Federal Courts should step in now as the California Judicial Council cannot be fixed within CA politics as the last two scathing audits have now proven. Nothing has changed in the last 15 years now. It is all Team George in charge and the culture is getting worse not better.
CA Courts have had declining filings since 2009 and yet the JC still pushes for more money and more judges every year to the CA legislature. That is crazy!!!
The latest report just released for all of us to see shows the case filing trends for the Superior Courts are still going down! What does the CA Courts link focus on, “Complex Court Filings Continue to Rise.”
http://www.courts.ca.gov/33183.htm
That is total BS spin and they should be called on it. Case filings in Superior Courts are down for the 5th year in the row is the real story!!! The Chief should be ashamed of this deceptive spin of the facts but since nobody checks her in the CA Legislature or Governor’s Office her AOC insiders feel emboldened and they carry on. They now blatently spew their politicized version as the truth and do so shamelessly.
The Judicial Council is simply a political machine serving themselves now instead of serving the CA public (or even the diverse voices within the branch) as it should.
Oh, here is my source on the VW exec resigning. Like Nixon he didn’t do anything wrong.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/09/23/volkswagen-emissions-scandal-martin-winterkorn/72673028/
katy
September 23, 2015
Saw that this morning. So once again, when caught fleecing the public one only needs to retire to avoid jail time for the acts that harm thousands. To me, THAT is what hit home about this story of what it has in common with what’s been occurring in the California courts/JC/AOC for at least the past six years.
The other big story along those same lines, is the USDOJ accepting $900M to settle a criminal case against GM — with NO ONE being held personally accountable for a decade of deceptive acts which took the lives of no less than 120 people. (15 people were let go — probably with big severance packages)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/business/gm-to-pay-us-900-million-over-ignition-switch-flaw.html?_r=0
“Too big to jail” still appears to be alive and well in the United States — including California.
sharonkramer
September 24, 2015
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said Volkswagen could face penalties of up to $18 billion….There will be further personnel consequences in the next days and we are calling for those consequences,’ Volkswagen board member Olaf Lies told the Bavarian broadcasting network”
Wow! Terrible “personnel consequences”. So far, three people have lost their jobs. Woop-tee-doo! Maybe they can hook up on a Caribbean Island somewhere to commiserate with some of the CA judicial branch employees who suffered the same horrific punishment for their defrauding of the public.
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/24/volkswagen-to-start-firings-over-emissions-scandal-sources/21240402/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D1821831809
unionman575
September 23, 2015
“Winkerkorn” hall of fame? Or is it shame?
No that one (shame) belongs to our CJ.
tsk tsk tsk
😉
unionman575
September 23, 2015
It’s time for new additions to the JCW Wall of Shame.
Post ’em up here: https://judicialcouncilwatcher.com/about/the-judicial-branch-wall-of-shame/
😉
katy
September 23, 2015
Also, here’s an article out today of the deceit that is still occurring over the bank derivative trading. Short story: Investors are buying loans from the federal gov’t at about 50% below fair market value. Then they are kicking the little people who can’t make the high mortgage payments out of their homes. If the Feds can sell these loans to investors at such a great reduction, they should be able to sell them to the homeowners by reducing their principle balance. If you notice, foreclosures and auctions are again on the rise. Its because of the old loans now being foreclosed upon by investors who bought them at great discount. They are once again making a killing — from their greed causing this mess in the first place. The feds bailed them out, and are now further rewarding their bad behavior.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/09/23/18030/hedge-funds-get-cheap-homes-homeowners-get-boot?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-a65e8a5ee2-100240357&mc_cid=a65e8a5ee2&mc_eid=7cf9538542
Judicial Council Watcher
September 24, 2015
From the realm of the private & completely anonymous message window: Note that the contents have altered to carry roughly the same message and to conceal the writers unique writing style. Anyone can send us a private & completely anonymous message by filling out the form at https:\\forms.hush.com\judicialcouncilwatcher . Please note that all fields are optional and we will preserve your anonymity even if you give us your name and email address. (if you do give us your name and email address, we will be happy to securely and privately converse with you)
With respect to this note, we’re a little skeptical about a part of the note because our other sources have indicated that Team Jacobs disappeared overnight in December of 2009 in a FMU staff meeting where FMU management described the contractors license issue to employees and indicated that moving forward they should only be referred to as “Jacobs”. But the alleged background of the re-branding reasoning of the company is rather interesting….
…and we made no attempt to verify the information supplied so enjoy the entertainment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the private message window, wordsmithed and paraphrased:
Why did Team Jacobs re-brand themselves? Branding confusion…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/
When the twilight saga came out all the cool kids who watched the twilight sagas became rooting fans of either (vampire) team edwards or (wherewolf) team jacobs and there was obtainable swag in the marketplace to promote their chosen characters.
People being cute started wearing the twilight saga buttons to Jacobs and FMU meetings and being socially engaging with cute little memes surrounding the movie version of team jacobs.
As management does, management saw no humor in the association and sought to change it. So they took a company that literally had dozens of licensed contractors on-staff (but none had their name on the license) and dissolved it, transferring everyone over to the new outfit.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JCW: But the odd part is the re-branded individual uniforms didn’t change until well after the suit was filed. Many, many months.
We remember a number of years ago when an internet search turned up the twilight saga series when you searched for team jacobs. Today when you search for team jacobs you’re likely to see these guys in the top of your search results.
https://twitter.com/TeamBradJacobs
Curling.
Now that’s some serious branding confusion.
unionman575
September 25, 2015
http://www.comstocksmag.com/article/full-court-press
Full-Court Press
A roundup of the key courthouse construction projects-in-progress
Article Sep 24, 2015 By Russell Nichols
In a few years, a brand new criminal courthouse is expected to open on the edge of the Sacramento railyards. Located on the corner of H and 6th streets, this second Sacramento County court building will be 405,500 square feet with 44 courtrooms. And it’s not the only new courthouse on the horizon. Right now, there are about 100 courthouses identified for development in California.
Before 2002, counties handled the construction and maintenance of these buildings, but that oversight shifted. The Trial Court Facilities Act made the Judicial Council of California — the policymaking body for the California court system — responsible for all court facilities statewide, enabling a single, comprehensive infrastructure program for the construction and maintenance of California’s courthouses, says Keby Boyer, a communications specialist with the council.
“Because of the severity of the recession, individual counties often struggled with the expense of maintaining county-owned buildings, including the courthouses,” Boyer says.
With so many courthouses in the pipeline, it remains to be seen if private design and construction teams can handle the pressure. Here’s a roundup of the key projects-in-progress:
😉
New Sacramento Criminal Courthouse
Location: Sacramento County
Funding: The project is funded by Senate Bill 1407. The initial funding year was fiscal year 2009-2010 (current authorized budget through working drawings is $49 million).
Progress level: Architectural design, preliminary plans.
Expected completion date: TBD. The Judicial Council indefinitely delayed the new Sacramento Criminal Courthouse project due to the state’s fiscal crisis and continuing cuts in court construction funds, Boyer says. The legislation for $27 million for the project’s architectural design was approved last September. Architectural design will proceed. However, funds for construction of this project have yet to be legislated. If construction funding is not secured, the Sacramento project will again be delayed.
New Stockton Courthouse
Location: San Joaquin County
Funding: Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002, through trial court user fees. The current authorized project budget is $273 million.
Progress level: Under construction.
Expected completion date: End of 2016.
New Red Bluff Courthouse
Location: Tehama County
Funding: Funded through Senate Bill 1407. The initial funding year was fiscal year 2009-2010. The current authorized project budget is $56 million.
Progress level: Under construction.
Estimated completion date: Fall 2016.
According to Curtis Owyang, the project design architect and LPAS vice president: “A modern, energy-efficient building, the design takes its inspiration from the historic courthouse that has served this region since 1920. The 62,000-square-foot new courthouse will provide five courtrooms and other court services. Because of the state’s budget crisis, this project was designated as a cost-reduction demonstration project. The design team identified several ways to reduce construction costs, and these were incorporated into the design. These strategies include using modified tilt-up concrete construction, eliminating a basement level and employing commercial-grade finishes.”
New Yuba City Courthouse
Location: Sutter County
Funding: Funded through Senate Bill 1407. The initial funding year fiscal year 2009-2010. The current authorized project budget is $66 million.
Progress level: Under construction.
Expected completion date: Summer 2015.
New Woodland Courthouse
😉
Location: Yolo County
Funding: Funded by Senate Bill 1407. The initial funding year was fiscal year 2009-2010. The current authorized project budget is $161 million.
Progress level: Complete.
According to Presiding Judge Kathleen M. White at the Superior Court of Yolo County: “A courthouse is built perhaps once every four generations. The judges, court and state judicial council staff and local leaders who have collaborated in this great effort understand that this building must serve today’s needs and the needs of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. It’s not enough that it be functional, cost effective, energy efficient and secure. It must also demonstrate to future generations how much we value justice. I think we succeeded.”
For information and status updates on California’s courthouse projects, visit courts.ca.gov.
For more on the state of construction, check back next week for Russell Nichols September feature, “Pushed to the Limit.” Or sign up for our newsletter and we’ll email you when it’s available online.
Wendy Darling
September 25, 2015
On a related note, whatever happened with a Court Construction & Facilities Maintenance audit?
Long live the ACJ.
Terry Francke
September 29, 2015
Hi, JCW — Any further information on the settlement?
> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Terry Francke > Subject: Re: [New post] Respondents Petition for Rehearing is Denied… > Date: September 17, 2015 at 3:34:46 PM PDT > To: Judicial Council Watcher > > Hi there, JCW. We may want to request a copy of that “confidential” settlement — or is it two? Do you have more information on the case(s)? > > Terry Francke > Californians Aware > >>
Judicial Council Watcher
September 30, 2015
The Judicial Council does not want to reveal the details of their over 5 million dollar giveaway so no further details.
Terry Francke
October 7, 2015
JCW — I’m not sure my messages are reaching you so I will ask someone else for a more effective email address.
Terry Francke
> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Terry Francke > Subject: Re: [New post] Respondents Petition for Rehearing is Denied… > Date: September 17, 2015 at 3:34:46 PM PDT > To: Judicial Council Watcher > > Hi there, JCW. We may want to request a copy of that “confidential” settlement — or is it two? Do you have more information on the case(s)? > > Terry Francke > Californians Aware > >>
Judicial Council Watcher
October 7, 2015
judicialcouncilwatcher@hushmail.com
Yesterday we posted the settlement agreement between the judicial council and Aleut. It would appear that the AOC changed their mind and released the settlement. While it is not designated as a confidential, the AOC claimed it was in previous inquiries.
unionman575
October 7, 2015
Even the Death Star HQ can change its mind with the right prodding.
Keep giving ’em the bull whip JCW!
😉
sharonkramer
October 9, 2015
That’s great, JCW & MP, that you all were able to cause what was never confidential to be disclosed.
However, the fact that you were first told it was confidential — when it wasn’t — is a red flag that nothing has changed at the JC/AOC. Its indicative that they still believe they are above the law; and can and will lie with no concern of being held personally accountable.
NOTHING is going to change in the mindset of that corrupted culture until criminal charges are filed for numerous acts of fraud, waste and abuse that became the norm under the reign of Ronald George.
The fact that Aleut paid millions to settle a law suit does NOTHING to remove Unclean Hands from the helm of California’s judicial system; or to stop something similar from occurring again in the future.
If anything, paying one’s way out of criminal charges while aiding to cover-up who was helping with the fraud from within the branch, only encourages attempts for others to do it again, tomorrow.
The Fact Remains:
When those at the helm are not held personally accountable for criminal misdeeds, their underlings still fear telling the truth. When people fear telling the truth, corruption continues to flourish.
A few mill from Aleut does not correct the underlying problem within the California judicial branch. Only criminal charges for those who have earned them, will.