San Francisco is a very expensive place in which to do business. Bloomberg Business reports that, in addition to sky-high rents for apartment dwellers and businesses, San Francisco is now the world’s most expensive place for visitors to spend the night. Parking, gasoline, groceries—everything costs more in The City.
So why does the AOC insist on staying there? Why won’t it move to Sacramento, thereby freeing up millions of taxpayer dollars that could go to our cash-strapped trial courts?
Last Friday, AOC Administrative Director Martin Hoshino sent out an email announcing that the AOC’s Burbank office would close, but that the central bureaucracy and hundreds of its employees would remain ensconced in the most expensive city in our state. According to Mr. Hoshino, keeping the San Francisco office “preserves critical institutional knowledge and maintains service continuity for our customers and clients statewide.” Mr. Hoshino’s email is reprinted below.
In choosing to keep the AOC in San Francisco, our branch leaders are ignoring the strong recommendation contained in the highly regarded 2012 Strategic Evaluation Committee report, commissioned by the Chief Justice herself. The report’s authors concluded:
“The high cost of the lease in San Francisco certainly underscores the need for the AOC to evaluate the continued economic viability of that location in the course of conducting its long-range planning. . . . . In this case, the Sacramento lease rates are substantially lower than the space leased in San Francisco. There is other value to be realized by relocating AOC headquarters to Sacramento. If the AOC had its primary operations in Sacramento, that would place its headquarters in the political capital of California and emphasize the standing of the judicial branch as a co-equal branch of state government. Increasingly, the future of the judiciary may depend on its budgetary success in the capital. A relocation of headquarters to Sacramento would provide potential benefits to the branch in its dealings with the executive branch and various administrative agencies located in Sacramento. While relocating to Sacramento or to other locations would require long-range planning, and would require time to execute, it is appropriate and necessary to consider this as a component of the AOC’s long-range plans.
The SEC’s thinking was reiterated just this past January by the State Auditor, who found:
“[T]he AOC has not sufficiently justified the increased expenses associated with maintaining its headquarters in San Francisco, where it pays far higher rent than it does in Sacramento. Consolidation of all its work locations in Sacramento would likely result in significant savings and could improve its employees’ productivity because the majority of its managers and staff would be in the same location.”
You can find Maria Dinzeo’s article on the AOC’s stubborn refusal to give up its San Francisco digs at this link. We urge the Judicial Council to reject the staff’s recommendations. But given that the Chief Justice has made it clear that she wants to keep the overblown bureaucracy in San Francisco, and since most of the voting members of the Council were appointed by her, the only thing standing between the recommendation and the vote to adopt it is time.
Meanwhile, in other news, the Judicial Council begrudgingly gave $49,000 to our colleagues from Mono Superior Court—the $33,000 in reserves it forked over to the state, plus an additional $16,000—to avoid further service cutbacks. The Council made Mono County sweat before it finally authorized the bailout. You can read more about the Mono County vote here.
So while the Judicial Council is refusing to generate millions in savings by moving to Sacramento, it’s nickel-and-diming the trial courts. Go figure.
In the words of the SEC report, “The judicial branch is charged with the responsibility to use taxpayer funds prudently.” That means supporting the trial courts that do the people’s business—not catering to the whims of high-ranking bureaucrats who refuse to move 90 minutes east for the sake of the branch.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
________________________________
From: Hoshino, Martin [mailto:Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 1:02 PM
To: JCC PJs – All Trial Courts; JCC Court Execs – ALL Trial Courts
Subject: Judicial Council Office Locations – Cost-Benefit Analysis
Presiding Judges and Court Executive Officers:
Please see the below email which was sent to all employees today regarding the cost-benefit analysis on Judicial Council office locations and related decisions.
Thank you.
Martin
Email to staff:
Judicial Council Employees:
As you know, for the past several months an independent consultant worked with a team from our Human Resources and Facilities Management offices to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on maintaining Judicial Council offices in multiple locations. The analysis was undertaken in order to respond to recommendations from the California State Auditor.
I understand the enormous anxiety that surrounded this study. Given the potential impact on our employees’ lives as well as on our organization, we required a comprehensive and rigorous analysis. Multiple scenarios were developed to provide both the quantitative and qualitative information needed to inform the final decisions that I’m sharing with you today.
Summary of Decisions
* The Judicial Council will retain its existing offices in San Francisco and Sacramento.
* Burbank operations will be relocated to San Francisco or Sacramento and the Burbank office will close by June 30, 2017. All affected employees in the Burbank office are being offered the option to relocate with their main office location in San Francisco or Sacramento.
* Real Estate and Facilities Management’s field offices will close as the leases expire, with the intent of relocating all of the field office and Burbank real estate staff to courthouse hubs where possible.
* Governmental Affairs will be relocated to the Gateway Oaks Sacramento office by August 31, 2017.
None of these decisions were made lightly. The cost-benefit analysis is based on a 10-year horizon to account for lease expirations, changes and the payoff of a lease revenue bond in the year 2021. We looked at comprehensive data and considered impacts on our workforce, budget, real estate, working relationships, continuity of business, productivity, and the long-term effectiveness and efficiency of our staff operations in meeting our customer needs and public service obligations.
All aspects of the analysis were carefully weighed and factored into decisions on how best to position the organization for the future. The information below outlines some of the considerations that were part of the decision-making process.
Consolidation in San Francisco and Sacramento
The retention of the San Francisco and Sacramento locations and the consolidation of staff from other offices to where the majority of our workforce and operations are located preserves critical institutional knowledge and maintains service continuity for our customers and clients statewide. Looking purely at the fiscal data, potential cost-savings of approximately $10-12 million may be realized over the 10-year period from the consolidation and relocation. The San Francisco location will see the most significant rent savings when the current lease revenue bond is fully paid off in 2021.
Burbank
Chief of Staff Jody Patel, Chief Administrative Officer Curt Soderlund, Human Resources Director Michael Guevara, and I met with staff in Burbank earlier today to share the decision to close that office and transfer positions and operations. In providing context to staff, Jody spoke from her perspective as a former regional administrative director about the gradual shift from the regional court service delivery model originally envisioned when the Burbank and Sacramento offices were established in 2001-2002. This shift resulted in the elimination of the regional administrative director position almost four years ago and a downsizing of staff and office space in Burbank. Within this context, maintaining and paying for office space in Burbank without a regional court service delivery model is no longer viable for either the Judicial Council or the courts we support
I know from personal experience working with some of the Burbank staff during the past year, as well as from hearing from their respective office leaders, that they are dedicated and valued employees who serve our branch well. All affected Burbank employees have been offered the option to transfer to their main office location in the San Francisco or Sacramento office. I realize, however, that for some, Northern California may not be an option, and we will offer support and resources to every individual impacted by this decision. I have charged the Human Resources office with the task of working with the Burbank staff to assist and facilitate with the various aspects of this type of transition.
Real Estate and Facilities Management
Real Estate and Facilities Management has a combination of staff managing local court facilities out of the Burbank office as well as just over half a dozen small field offices. Other staff work directly out of court facilities with no overhead costs. Field office staff, court based staff and Burbank based staff were asked to participate in today’s meeting in Burbank. Our intent is to relocate all of the field office and Burbank real estate staff to courthouse hubs where possible. As well as rent savings, this consolidation will facilitate shared facilities management oversight and direct delivery of services to the courts.
Governmental Affairs
The relocation of Governmental Affairs to the Gateway Oaks Sacramento office location by August 2017 was discussed with Governmental Affairs staff this morning. The planned consolidation will enhance day-to-day working relationships with other areas of the office, in addition to achieving real estate savings. A smaller hoteling space may be secured for use during peak legislative periods to afford proximity to the Capitol building for Judicial Council staff advocates.
In Closing
I know how difficult these pending changes are for those employees whose jobs and lives are most directly affected. I also know that many of you will be concerned for your colleagues. As a next step, Human Resources will be working directly with the individual employees impacted by these decisions. In addition, real estate transition plans will be developed. The extended timeframes for implementing the changes will, I hope, facilitate successful transitions for employees within the Judicial Council or to new positions that are personally and professionally rewarding. The Executive Office, HR, and office leaders will provide assistance through the process.
The final cost-benefit analysis report has not yet been posted pending communication of final decisions to everyone in the organization and notification of other key stakeholders. I anticipate that it will be made available as a public document within the next 10 days.
Martin
Martin Hoshino, Administrative Director
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
415-865-4235 | 916-643-7025 | Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov | http://www.courts.ca.gov
katy
November 9, 2015
“Looking purely at the fiscal data, potential cost-savings of approximately $10-12 million may be realized over the 10-year period from the consolidation and relocation.”
Or stated another way: “We are only willing to reduce the AOC facilities expendatures by what pencils out to be at most, about $1 million per year. Screw the starving courts and the public’s access to them. We don’t care about what the little people think or the problems they have. It would be inconvenient for us and beneath our standards to move out of The City.”
Lando
November 10, 2015
Now the great reformer Hoshino will claim he is implementing the SEC report by closing down the Burbank branch of the AOC. The problem with that contention is that the Burbank branch should have closed long ago.History will show that Burbank was opened around the same time Sheila Gonzalez was placed in charge of developing a Southern California regional case management system. Once that plan changed to develop a statewide system CCMS, the Burbank branch continued to grow in staff as CCMS continued to waste multi millions of taxpayer dollars. In fact in the infamous tipping point video where CCMS is declared to be ready to be deployed , we see all the insiders on tour at the Burbank branch which is stuffed with countless employees working on the failed system. Once CCMS was finally exposed as a complete and total failure, there was no reason to have continued to keep the Burbank kingdom open. The day the music died for CCMS was well over four years ago and the public , Governor and legislature should all ask why Burbank wasn’t closed then. Hoshino knows this.What he wasn’t counting on was that many in the branch know the actual history and don’t buy into his false claims of branch reformation. The only real reform is to close the Crystal Palace at 455 Golden Gate and auction off the crystal, glass and cherry wood appointments to the highest bidder.
unionman575
November 10, 2015
Grade: “F”
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_29092787/california-gets-c-minus-government-integrity-survey-47
wearyant
November 11, 2015
Oh, my, my. Anyone current with the outrageous events covered here on JCW would agree with the UMan. A big, fat “F” it is for our lovely state. It isn’t graded on a curve, is it? Just wondering. After reading MercuryNews you’ll be even more convinced of the lowest possible grade ever. 😁
Anthony
November 10, 2015
I suggest you use this forum to petitioner the appropriate government agencies to move both the AOC and CJP – count me in. The AOC has a purpose; however, the restrictions placed on the CJP have made them nothing but another ineffective bureaucracy – in fact the CJP will tell you they have virtually no enforcement power. The old CJP regime valiantly petitioned to be the governing party we all need, but lost that battle in the SBX2 II legislation when our Attorney General sided with her affluent good o’l boy attorney/judge network and made judges untouchable by upholding absolute judicial immunity.
Wendy Darling
November 10, 2015
Todays installment of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Tuesday, November 10, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise:
Alliance Skewers Leadership Over Plan to Stay in San Francisco
From Staff and Wire Service Reports
The Alliance of California Judges yesterday reacted negatively to the announcement that the state judiciary intends to remain primarily headquartered in San Francisco, rather than move to the state’s capital.
The group said in a statement:
“San Francisco is a very expensive place in which to do business. Bloomberg Business reports that, in addition to sky-high rents for apartment dwellers and businesses, San Francisco is now the world’s most expensive place for visitors to spend the night. Parking, gasoline, groceries—everything costs more in The City.
“So why does the AOC insist on staying there? Why won’t it move to Sacramento, thereby freeing up millions of taxpayer dollars that could go to our cash-strapped trial courts?”
AOC is the acronym for Administrative Office of the Courts, the now-retired name of the Judicial Council staff.
The alliance said it was responding to an email sent out Friday by courts Administrative Director Martin Hoshino, who said the judiciary’s Burbank office would close by 2017, but that staff would remain headquartered in San Francisco, where the Supreme Court is based.
Keeping the San Francisco office “preserves critical institutional knowledge and maintains service continuity for our customers and clients statewide,” Hoshino wrote.
2012 Recommendation
The decision to remain in “the most expensive city in the state,” the alliance noted, is contrary to a 2012 recommendation of the Strategic Evaluation Committee appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, as well as the suggestion earlier this year of the state auditor.
The SEC, in its report three years ago, noted that “the high cost of the lease in San Francisco certainly underscores the need for the AOC to evaluate the continued economic viability of that location in the course of conducting its long-range planning.” The report pointed out that “Sacramento lease rates are substantially lower than the space leased in San Francisco,” and said the branch would benefit from greater proximity to the other branches of government.
The auditor argued that moving to Sacramento “would likely result in significant savings and could improve…employees’ productivity because the majority of its managers and staff would be in the same location.”
The alliance commented in its release yesterday:
“We urge the Judicial Council to reject the staff’s recommendations. But given that the Chief Justice has made it clear that she wants to keep the overblown bureaucracy in San Francisco, and since most of the voting members of the Council were appointed by her, the only thing standing between the recommendation and the vote to adopt it is time. “
Longstanding View
The alliance reiterated its longstanding view that all judges should have an opportunity to vote for the judicial members of the council.
Hoshino Friday said closure of the Burbank office will save $10-$12 million over 10 years.
The staff in that office has been reduced, Hoshino said, so paying for the space no longer makes sense.
The Judicial Council employed a consulting firm to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the suggested move. In his email, Hoshino said that the decisions to eliminate the Burbank office while staying in San Francisco were not made lightly.
“Given the potential impact on our employees’ lives as well as on our organization, we required a comprehensive and rigorous analysis,” Hoshino said, adding that the firm looked at multiple scenarios, including the payoff of a lease revenue bond at its San Francisco office.
‘Significant Rent Savings’
“The San Francisco location will see the most significant rent savings when the current lease revenue bond is fully paid off in 2021,” Hoshino said.
Besides, he noted, keeping the San Francisco office “preserves critical institutional knowledge and maintains service continuity for our customers and clients statewide.”
Hoshino’s email also said the staff’s lobbying arm will permanently relocate to Sacramento from San Francisco by August 2017.
The consulting firm’s report should be made public within 10 days, Hoshino said. But the Judicial Council still must accept its findings in order for them to be adopted.
The alliance’s view echoed a 2012 proposal that became AB 2501, by then-Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad. The bill would have required that all state agencies, including the judiciary, relocate their principal headquarters to the capital by 2025. The legislation would also have provided that, beginning in that year, “the Supreme Court shall only hear cases in the Sacramento metropolitan area.”
http://www.metnews.com/
Mr. Hoshino serves “at the pleasure of the Chief Justice.” And it pleases Her Majesty for the AOC to remain in San Francisco. And so in San Francisco the AOC shall remain.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
November 10, 2015
There is no justification for the Judicial Council to remain in the incredibly expensive Crystal Palace other than institutional arrogance. I am sure Ronald George would object to dismantling the kingdom that he built , since the state buildings at 455 Golden Gate are now named after him. I honestly believe that is really what this issue is all about. Everything HRH-2 has done centers on protecting the legacy of King George. The trial courts and taxpayers can suffer as long as we protect a totally failed past which is highlighted throughout 455 Golden Gate’s dark hallways. Hoshino who once showed some promise has sold out and bought into the ” let them eat cake ” attitude that pervades the San Francisco operation of the Judicial Council or AOC, whatever we are calling the insiders these days. What a total disgrace in a long litany of total disgraces.
Wendy Darling
November 11, 2015
“Ronald George would object to dismantling the kingdom that he built , since the state buildings at 455 Golden Gate are now named after him. I honestly believe that is really what this issue is all about. Everything HRH-2 has done centers on protecting the legacy of King George.”
I agree, Lando. At this point, what “institutional knowledge” could there possibly be at 455 Golden Gate Avenue that is worth preserving at all, much less at such a great expense/waste of public money? The “institutional knowledge” of how to embezzle public funds and even when caught red-handed, not have it even reported to law enforcement and be allowed to get away with it scott-free? The “institutional knowledge” of how to double-invoice vendor invoices and contracts? Or the “institutional knowledge” of how to launch and pursue the biggest failure of a public works IT project in the history of California, while evading and lying to the State Legislature and wasting nearly a billion dollars of public money in the process? Any shred of “institutional knowledge” of any value at 455 Golden Gate Avenue that remains is in the line staff, and given the high turnover in line staff the past eight years there is very little of that left, if any at all.
It really is all about protecting and preserving the legacy of the “great Ron George.” Queen Feckless’ own words. Has been since day one. And will continue to be. Most everyone has figured out by now that Ron George wasn’t so great, and he certainly didn’t leave a legacy worth preserving or protecting to the detriment of the California Judicial Branch, or the public it is supposed to serve. But not Queen Feckless. For her, he is still the “great Ron George.”
And maybe, someday, people are going to start asking, and figuring out, why that is.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Lando
November 11, 2015
Wendy , For the last 4 years I have admired your insights, honesty, courage and concern for the citizens we serve. Thanks for all your contributions to help reform the once proud third branch of California government. Your last post says it all. We need as a branch to be honest and cast aside the double speak and lies that come out of 455 Golden Gate. We do need to ask why HRH-2 is so committed to protecting King George and his failed legacy. We need to ask why one of the largest judicial systems in the world continues to be run like a banana republic. We need someone to hold the 455 Golden Gate insiders accountable for the billions of taxpayer dollars they have wasted on CCMS, Long Beach and their stubborn refusal to vacate the Crystal Palace.
wearyant
November 14, 2015
Today’s Dilbert is really “deep.” Some might call it “heavy.” Perhaps our Wendy Darling or even our UMan could expound on it for the viewing audience. I’m thinking of how in the hell the top tier management bureaucrats who now call themselves the judicial council staff get away with–oops–I mean enjoy such lavish pay and all attendant accoutrements whilst in public service … and have really just bombed as far as horrendous returns for the citizens’ investment in them.
Justice California
November 16, 2015
Ron George, Sakauye and other Team George stalwarts have reigned over the biggest judiciary in the world for almost two decades now. If anyone should be held accountable for the current “F” rated state of CA judicial affairs, it is George and Sakauye.
The report Unionman previously referenced:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18342/california-gets-c-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation
Sakauye and others in the branch apparently believe they are untouchable, but reports like these a) tend to accumulate, and b) are an embarrassing disgrace to our state. Reports like these give CA legislators something to work with when people come pounding on their office doors complaining that decades of branch oversight efforts have not worked, and demanding reform.
Speaking of judicial accountability and oversight, the Commission on Judicial Performance has been sitting on a June 2014 complaint involving a Marin County judge and the backdating of court records and other serious misconduct in a child custody case for almost 18 months now. Marin County replaced the Court Executive Officer involved, namely Kim Turner, in June 2015, one year after the complaint was made. Exactly how long does it take the CJP to act on a detailed complaint referencing the law and all supporting documents? I guess everyone is going to find out. The complaint was referred to the CJP by members of all three branches of government, so everyone is kind of waiting to see what is going to be done about this, and when, by the one and only official judicial oversight entity in CA.
Not to worry, I am not going off on a Marin tangent here, just making a point about the state of judicial branch accountability in CA. If justice delayed is justice denied, what is effective branch oversight delayed? With respect to unrestrained branch misconduct in cases involving children, it is hard to know. In the PA Kids for Cash scandal, Governor Ed Rendell castigated the judges involved, saying they “violated the rights of as many as 6000 young people by denying them basic rights to counsel and handing down outrageously excessive sentences. The lives of these young people and their families were changed forever.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
6,000 children were harmed before these judges were stopped.
Unless the CJP is undertaking a MASSIVE investigation involving multiple cases, 18 months is far too long for the CJP to wait to act on reports of serious judicial misconduct in cases involving children. Thousands of litigants can pass through a family or juvenile courtroom in that period of time, and the potential for ongoing harm is just too great.
unionman575
November 16, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/eandp-20151119-notice.pdf
unionman575
November 16, 2015
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/rupro-20151118-notice.pdf
unionman575
November 16, 2015
Brought to you by Hot Rod: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/nov/13/courthouse-downtown-state-som-rudolph/
Nathaniel Woodhull
November 17, 2015
Hi Kids!
I’m finally here in a secure remote location.
Balanced budgets, low crime, quick and friendly service both at the courts and the DMV.
It was a crisis when the State Budget was $3 Million in the red , but the Legislature immediately balanced the Budget by making cuts.
Oh the humanity. If people here can’t afford something they either get another job or don’t buy it.
Self reliance and personal responsibility are the focus of things here.
It’s kind of like California was in 1972 when I was first getting started.
I’m glad to see that Wendy, unionman, Lando, and wearyant are still fighting the good fight.
During my last decade in California I was tilting at windmills and therefore viewed by some as being slightly right of Attila the Hun. Here I’m viewed as a “middle of the road” American, perhaps a little bit on the liberal side.
This all has to do with perception. It is clear that the perception by Martin Hoshino and the rest of the crew at 455 Golden Gate Avenue is that they have nothing and no one in opposition in their path toward “enlightenment”.
Hoshino has obviously been seduced by the power and “prestige” of his office. I have no doubt that he has special digs overlooking the Bay or Golden Gate Bridge because he is owed that. (The man as become a legend in his own mind.)
I’m sad to say that I believe California is toast. There is no coming back from the path that HRH-1 embarked on circa 1996. All of us who dared to oppose him were marginalized and many of our so-called friends chose to look away as Hundreds of Millions of Dollars were being flushed down the toilet. As I was told on more than one occasion, it’s not “our” money and sometimes you need to go along to get along. I couldn’t do that and have the battle scars to prove it. In my former court I’ve seen over 20-years work dismantled in less than 4-years of the “new breed” of AOC trained incompetent leadership. Judges have been either whipped into submission or they truly don’t understand that they are independently elected State Constitutional officers and not bureaucratic employees of the AOC. You’ve got to give HRH-1 credit because when he took over NJO, the end was near. The score of new judges coming back from New Judge Orientation telling me that “they” got a picture with the Chief Justice and how thrilling it was to be in his presence made me want to puke.
Given the fact that in most metropolitan areas the D.A.’s, County Counsel’s and P.D.P.’s are making anywhere from $20K to $100k more than the judges they appear before, there is little incentive for “good” public lawyers to apply to become judges. Many of those now being appointed would never have even had their names come down for JNE 20 years ago given their talent and abilities.
I am shocked by the number of brand new judges who are already on their path to the Court of Appeals or Federal Court. They don’t know what it is to be a judge, but they are already ready to move on to a higher office because they are entitled to it and have a definitive timeline to follow.
I wish you all well and hope that you will make an positive impact with respect tot he California Courts. In my case I feel like I left it all on the field and I have nothing left to give. Good luck my friends and I hope that some day Californians will wake up and realize that they have been sold a bill of goods by the “leadership” of the Judicial Branch.
Nat
Wendy Darling
November 17, 2015
“California is toast. There is no coming back from the path that HRH-1 embarked on circa 1996.”
I agree one thousand percent.
Long live the ACJ.
unionman575
November 18, 2015
I agree one thousand percent.
😉
wearyant
November 18, 2015
“Balanced budgets, low crime, quick and friendly service both at the courts and the DMV.”
“Self reliance and personal responsibility are the focus of things here.
It’s kind of like California was in 1972 when I was first getting started.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there such a place where you don’t have to either freeze your ass off or burn up most months?
Always great to hear from the general! Those who are not part of the in crowd and still care about the third branch will continue to “kick at the pricks” (from the KJV) until the last breath.
Long live the ACJ and The General.
Delilah
November 18, 2015
The destruction has permeated to every level throughout the branch. I have personally witnessed the complete dismantling of a certain Bay Area court within three years by a “new breed” CEO who broke everything that wasn’t already broken, caused a mass exodus of the last court employees with any institutional knowledge, and then walked away without a care to a new job, leaving total devastation in the rear-view mirror. Ho-hum. What do they care about court workers and the public.
To be an employee of the CA trial courts was once a respected and rewarding job. Now the turnover rate is higher than ever, and long-time employees can’t wait to retire and/or just get out alive. The judges seem to just go along as if nothing’s happening, happy to be the king/queen of their own little courtroom of the world, seemingly unconcerned or unaware that the castle is rotted and crumbling all around them.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/california-traffic-tickets-amnesty-program-leaves-many-behind/Content?oid=4572407
http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/rules-about-fighting-traffic-tickets-raise-questions/article_252b6878-7328-5aab-b19a-c1acc81b991f.html