Back in 2012, the Chief Justice proclaimed in an interview that she would try to “have new voices circulate in and out” of the Judicial Council. She said that the Council should counter the perception that it was insular and elitist by “open[ing] everything up to the public.”
Those words have proven to be empty ones, as was painfully demonstrated at the last Judicial Council meeting on July 29.Over the past few weeks, we’ve been telling you about how the Judicial Council has been trying to strip judgeships away from Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and reallocate them elsewhere.
We’ve counted three separate attempts in the past few months to ram proposals through the Legislature, including two that would have given the authority to reassign those judgeships to the Council, perhaps in violation of the California Constitution. The idea was first floated as a mere “concept” before the Futures Commission. It soon popped up in the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee (PCLC), which was on the verge of rubber-stamping it when a firestorm of protest broke out across the state. Even though this proposal represents a tectonic shift in branch administration toward even greater Council control over local trial courts, the Judicial Council itself has never even discussed it in public, let alone approved it.
Naturally, the presiding judge of Alameda County, Morris Jacobson, had something to say about the Council’s plan to whittle down the Alameda bench. More specifically, he wanted to express his serious qualms about the process through which a “concept” morphed into a trio of proposed bills with no input from one of the local courts that would be hit the hardest. Judge Jacobson, a former member of the Council himself, wanted to raise his concerns with the PCLC. He couldn’t. Instead, he had to resort to addressing the entire Council during the public comment period. He was allotted just two minutes to state his case. Just as he was about to make his “ask,” the council member presiding over the comment period, Judge Marla Anderson of Monterey, called time and cut him off. We’ve attached Maria Dinzeo’s account from Courthouse News to the end of this message.
You can see what happened for yourself. Click on this link and scroll ahead to the one-hour mark.
So the presiding judge of the seventh-largest county in the state wanted to say something about a proposal that would profoundly affect his court, a proposal that has enormous constitutional and policy implications, and the Judicial Council of California treated him as though he were a gadfly. Never was the case for democratizing the Council made so vividly. This sorry episode puts the lie to the notion that the Council has turned a new leaf. The Council doesn’t welcome dissenting views; at most, it tolerates them, and only for up to two minutes.
In a related story, Alliance director Maryanne Gilliard of Sacramento recently made a public records request of the AOC and actually got some useful information. She learned that our branch is shelling out $620,906 this year alone to the National Center for State Courts, most of it, according to a 2015 AOC annual payment report, for “dues and memberships.”
The NCSC has been the incubator of many a bad idea in court administration over the years, but there are nuggets of wisdom among its many reports and periodicals. We direct the Council’s attention to an article in a recent NCSC publication on leadership and technology. The author, a Minnesota judge, wrote:
“A healthy court culture is one where leaders hear other voices. Hearing other voices strengthens a court leader and strengthens the court.”
Ours is not a healthy court culture.
The Alliance will continue to push for a democratically elected Council. The only way to make the Council a responsive and accountable body is to make it a representative one.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
________________________________
Judge Cut Off From Completing Comments to CA Judicial Council
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – At the California Judicial Council’s Friday meeting, chaired by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the presiding judge of Alameda Superior Court was cut off by a deputy sheriff who approached the lectern to stop him from finishing his comment on a recent policy decision reducing the number of judges in his court.
On a separate agenda item, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye announced she is adding a new, budget-focused committee to the council’s vast array of advisory bodies that already includes the Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee and the Financial Accountability and Efficiency Committee.
On a third agenda item, the council took up the contentious topic of funding for California’s juvenile dependency courts. The program needs a $200 million to function properly, according a report presented at the meeting, but its budget remains stuck at $114.7 million thanks to a line item veto by Governor Jerry Brown.
During his two minutes as a “public commenter,” Presiding Judge Morris Jacobson of Alameda County was trying to address a council decision that has drawn wide criticism from judges, attorneys and the public since it was made. The council decided to reallocate funding and judgeships among California superior courts.
Judge Jacobson described himself as a former Judicial Council member, “a career-long supporter of statewide judicial policy” and “branch loyalist.”
He urged his listeners to rethink how it made those decisions. He pointed to the council’s committee on legislation, which voted in May to pursue legislation that would allow the council to move five vacant judgeships from one county to another. Two of those judgeships will likely be “donated” from Alameda County.
Jacobson took issue with the committee’s process, saying he wasn’t allowed to speak at the meeting prior to the vote.
“As presiding judge in my county, my first priority is to our citizens, our court users, our lawyers, our justice partners, our employees and judges. By not allowing us to participate in having a meaningful opportunity to speak in the course of things, we felt cut off from the herd and it left us without the Judicial Council as a refuge or a place to seek help,” he said. “We were forced to go outside the branch.”
Before he could finish his comment on his voice being unheard, Jacobson was cut off.
“Time’s up,” said Monterey Judge Marla Anderson whose responsibility on the council includes keeping time. Jacobson appeared about to continue, a deputy sheriff immediately stepped towards him, the judge stopped short and stepped away.
The chief justice, chairing the meeting, remained silent.
Martin Hoshino, the current director of the “staff,” which is the rebranded name for the former Administrative Office of the Courts, followed the judge out of the board room located in the Supreme Court building in downtown San Francisco. Hoshino talked wth Jacobson in the hallway for about 15 minutes.
In a hallway interview following that conversation, Jacobson talked about a committee meeting where he was not allowed to represent his court as judgeships were taken away.
“They held a very fast meeting,” said the judge. “We were just 30 minutes away and were told we couldn’t be in the room. That didn’t make sense. Before we could begin considering what a thoughtful response would be, it was in the Legislature being shopped.”
Alameda was labeled a “donor” court by the council in its reallocation, meaning Alameda would have to give up judgeships and money. Jacobson said his court which serves a huge low income population is in fact struggling to keep courtrooms open.
Jacobson said the council’s Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee, which represents the council’s position on legislation, gave him two to three days notice about the phone meeting. “We were told we could listen by phone, but we couldn’t speak,” he said. “I’m just saying we want to be heard in the course of the process.”
He said director Hoshino had been “very receptive and fair-minded” in their conversation.
Back inside, another agenda item at Friday’s meeting also involved a budget matter, the amount of money available for dependency courts which hear cases about children who are abused or neglected.
At last month’s meeting, the council put off voting on how to deal with the allocation for smaller courts under a new funding model that assesses need based on case filings. Attorneys representing parents and children in small counties like Humboldt and Siskiyou cried foul, saying their workloads were much higher than had been determined by the new method.
On Friday, the council decided unanimously — nearly all council votes are unanimous — to give courts with smaller case loads $406,000 in one-time relief funding and set aside a $200,000 reserve from which courts can request when they experience an unexpected rise in cases.
“Even though this works a little bit against my home court from a statewide perspective, I think this is an appropriate move forward to take and carve out some money for these small courts that would be severely impacted,” said Presiding Judge Brian McCabe of Merced.
He noted that Plumas County was slated to lose about $10,000 under the new funding method. “$10,000 for a lot of courts is not much, but for them it would effectively wipe out their ability to handle those cases on a staffing level.”
Presiding Judge Dean Stout said, “Every dollar is important here to these children and families. What we are really talking about, relatively speaking, is a very small amount of money, but it can avoid, in some cases, a rather Draconian effect in the small courts.”
The agenda for Friday’s council meeting did not include the formation of a new budget committee, which Cantil-Sakauye announced at the outset. “We need a new branch-wide approach to budget,” she said.
The new Judicial Branch Budget Committee will now be one of six internal Judicial Council committees, one of a select group that operates just below the council itself, to which all other advisory groups report. Cantil-Sakauye said that for now, the budget committee will be limited to reviewing budget change proposals — requests for money for the judiciary sent to the governor’s Department of Finance at the start of each fiscal year.
“I believe this is not only good governance is reflected in how the legislature operates, but also sound government practice,” Cantil-Sakauye said. “Adding a budget committee is another transformation to enhance the council’s ability to carry out our fiduciary responsibilities.”
Judge David Rubin of San Diego will chair the committee, with Justice Jim Humes as vice-chair. Both are currently council members.
anonymous
August 10, 2016
Three words: Rejection breeds obsession.
Deny the people a voice and they will find it elsewhere.
Santa, Tooth Fairies Unicorns and California Court Justice
August 10, 2016
I direct this to the ACJ… I have been a monthly donor since 2012 albeit only a token amount because I have great respect for what you have done towards creating an internal change from the croney structure that destroyed the judiciary and created this tyrannical “simulated justice system”. I have been hopeful that the experience that the founders of the ACJ experienced under “King George” would create greater compassion for the litigants that perhaps may be missing within your court.
The “second class” treatment still received from the judicial counsel’s inner circle within California Judicial construct provides a feeling of kinship in plight and a hope that this understanding transcends to “The People” providing the sole purpose for your position’s existence. If you find any of my comments offensive, I apologize in advance I know very few people in the judicial environment and my comments reflect my experiences in terms of a culture or profession in general and not an individual. Typically Judges are arrogant and treat litigants without lawyers as children or a sub-class of people too ignorant to understand the complexities of law and as such treat us exactly the same as they do you. It is the current culture and is ingrained and normalized the collective patterning.
I must admit I am skeptical that you represent only a changing of the regime and more of the S.O.S. will continue to be served to the 70% that are pro’se as they remain treated not as a second class citizen but third. I do have an issue with with the complaints that from the ACJ that the CJP elites use it to unfairly against the judges and a request for,less oversight while California has the worst oversight and most abuse within their system. In fact the CJP admits it is a “Institutional Eunuch” when it comes to its constitutional mandate to protect the public from abusive judges and they exist only to protect the image of the judiciary as they summarily reject 98.5% of the complaints from litigants and nobody is that clean. The CJP obviously is more concerned about the judges having sex in their courtroom chambers and tarnishing “the image” than they are about the ones who are altering court records, appeal proofing abusive orders and destroying “the families”. I can tell you from experience it would be a joy to the litigants to allow the judge to enjoy “relations” even during court if they would actually apply the law as intended and respect the rule of law and the litigants civil rights.
they say… “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence* of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law* and the provisions of this code. Public confidence in the impartiality* of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violations of this code diminish public confidence in the judiciary and thereby do injury to the system of government under law.”
what if there isn’t integrity ?
where can you go to find a judicial officer who isnt afraid to honor their duty?
Independent and protected Judges join the Alliance of California Judges in secrecy due to fear of professional retaliation … what should a parent do when they fear for their kids ?
I have written while taking a break from preparing paperwork that I am really afraid to submit. My daugher is in crisis. She is in high school but started early because she started reading before she was 3 and so she is young. She was a honor roll student in 2012 and now she had 3 D’s last semester. In 2012 I filed a complaint of Elkins due process violations with the presiding judge who forwarded to another judge who co-chaired 6 Counsel Committees together. It was denied sighting my chance to present my argument and be heard on a date my complaint clearly stated I did not see the judicial officer because the court is run from chambers. This is the depth of oversight provided without a lawyer. A few months later In my daughter’s counselor asked me to get a second opinion from a psychologist because after two years of this abusive court system she was worried the depression she might be suicidal. I filed ex-parte for her mother to pay 1/2 of the cost as an emergency situation and for retaliation for the complaint about “in-chambers” abuse.. she dismissed my request from chambers violating my absolute right to be heard. 40% guideline support and 4yrs $30k in defrauded support caused my eviction in sept 2015. During the eviction process my childs mother ran to the court and took legal custody and I have 4 days per month custody. I had to pick her up from school due to an emotional crisis 5mo ago and the school wanted her to get psychological help… I took her to her counselor once and her mother never did since. I haven’t seen my oldest daughter now in 4mo due to parental alienation. I have to remove a Judicial Council member with ties to the CJP and served with the inner circle of Ron George back in the consolidation of the courts. There is a connection to pro-tem
I have been watching and reporting abuse since 2000 from the outside and 2011 from within and the truth is nobody cares until it effects them and the judges have such little oversight that it is a joke. I can show record modification and prove that in 3 different courts the same. What does a citizen do when they their rights are being abused by the person who only authority is to protect them. Where do you go when the criminal is the Judge ? Theoretically we should have the same objective even if coming from a different place
The epicenter of corruption is Orange County and I know a few members of the Alliance are from the court. From the D/A’s office to the Sheriff’s we see more and more just how corrupt it is and how willing the existing power structures are to “rule by law” and ignore “rule of law” as they continue to ignore misconduct to achieve objectives. The DA is so focused on conviction rates that it continues to pursue until the 9th circuit threatens to name people in their decision. Are there any contacts to the corruption task force or judges that aren’t politically aligned and want a real change ?
I recognize that 90% of the judges have a potential issue with the extra county pay situation via Dr Fine and i’m not judging nor have a position but I realize that there is no blanket immunity and you cannot re-write laws retroactively to nullify its illegality. I also recognize the appearance of corruption that comes when all three separated powers come together and subvert the law to protect one branch. Worse than that is the concept that gang members are kept loyal through fear that exposure would be mutually damaging and they keep quiet on the actions of others. where does the line stop ? Is this where the judiciary is currently as whole ?
I have lost all faith in this judicial system, there is no trust from the public as there is none due. Anyone who was aware of the facts wouldn’t agree and its why it received a FAIL, Anyone who can suggest something to protect my filing from modification and abuse or an alternate path to full presentation of my abundant proof of multi-county fraud to interested legislative personnel would be appreciated. The existing structure must fall
If you are frustrated by what happened at the meeting think about this…
The nutcake Chris Dorner complained a judge was corrupt and later…Turns out he was
He said Baca was corrupt …. He was. Richard Fine knows, He was jailed from a order from a closed san pedro court by the judge. Dorner wasn’t a nutcake or at least not a full one. He obviously had PTSD from the 9 years and life savings he spent trying to get his life back and the career he loved. He believed in the system and that at the end he would prevail because in school they teach you about the rights that truly don’t exist until in a court without bias and corruption. He lost his relationship with his mother and the most important thing to mental stability – his “world view”. I think California Judiciary takes at least equal responsibility as the LAPD for its failure in integrity for the lives of the innocent people
Nobody likes being treated unfairly … and this is just a grape
Wendy Darling
August 11, 2016
Quite frankly, it’s surprising Judge Jacobson was “allowed” to speak for 2 minutes; allowed being the operative word. Now, if Judge Jacobson had stood up and extolled the collective wisdom of the branch “leadership”, praised the Chief Justice, and commended all of them for what a great job they’re all doing, well then, he would have been allowed to talk on and on and on , , ,
This is but the latest illustration of how nothing has materially changed at 455 Golden Gate Avenue. Nothing. The branch continues to be run by liars, thugs, thieves, hypocrites, and out-right crooks. Not that anyone is actually going to do anything about any of that.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
August 11, 2016
A smart man once explained to me that we all get what we’re willing to tolerate. Change only happens when we raise our standards about what we’re willing to tolerate. No slight against the judge – but he was willing to tolerate being cut off at the two minute mark, while trying to explain that he had previously tolerated: Getting left out of the discussion about the future of his court.
I’ve demonstrated what I wasn’t willing to tolerate in the judicial branch. Low and behold, things eventually changed in big ways. I guess what I’m getting at is that you who is reading this comment: What have you tolerated for years and what are you willing to do to raise your standards and not tolerate it anymore?
Personally for me, the democratization of the council between judges, attorneys and members of the public would be raising my standards about what I would be willing to tolerate.
When people voted for the CJ, they didn’t vote for her to lead a state sponsored construction company, administer the courts or design a fucked up software program. Frankly, she sucks at all these things but has reasoned opinions as a jurist. She should stick to what she knows and shouldn’t be appointing bobble heads whose only prerequisite is the ability to vote unanimously and referring to them as branch leadership. Lemmings don’t lead. Much like the council, they follow.
So if you’re reading this comment consider changing what you’re willing to tolerate. Then, take action. You’ll grow outside of your comfort zone. You’ll die within it.
unionman575
August 11, 2016
I am not willing to tolerate all the double speak and lies.
Michael Paul
August 11, 2016
Perhaps people could get a word in edgewise if they lined up in front of the council each with two minutes, successively ceding their time to their selected speaker representative. A coordinated response starts with a coordinated effort. Just a thought.
unionman575
August 11, 2016
I like that thought…
Wendy Darling
August 12, 2016
Today’s edition of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Friday, August 12, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
New Courthouses Mothballed in Calif. Amid Money Woes
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The building of more than a dozen new California courthouses is in limbo after a Judicial Council committee on construction — acknowledging a funding crisis — voted to put 17 projects on hold Thursday.
“I think there’s not a clearer, more intelligent way to proceed at this juncture in my view. It’s really our only option,” said Justice Jeffrey Johnson, a member of the council’s Courthouse Facilities Advisory Committee.
The decision came after five hours of impassioned testimony from judges and court clerks representing 16 counties desperate to replace their aging and in some cases dangerous facilities.
Siskiyou County’s planned Yreka courthouse is the most shovel-ready of the group, having already signed a contract with McCarthy Construction. The project was scheduled to break ground in June when the court learned of the shortfall in the judiciary’s Immediate and Critical Needs Account, which funds courthouse construction through fines and fees. McCarthy’s bid expires on Aug. 19.
“Everything about this project cries out for completion and that’s what’s so tragic about this funding problem,” committee chair Justice Brad Hill said. “We’re going to fight with every breath we have to make sure this courthouse is built.”
But his words were cold comfort for the court.
“We’re terribly disappointed,” Siskiyou County Presiding Judge William B. Davis said after the meeting. “We thought we had the best chance.”
He added, “The tragedy is that the funds that were swept by the governor and legislature have not been returned. We’re concerned that costs will be higher when we try to renew this project.”
Grace Bennett, chair of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, had tears in her eyes. “It’s just not right,” she said, shaking her head. “It’s a kick in the stomach to hear this happen.”
At the starting of the meeting, Hill told the judges he planned to meet with lawmakers in Sacramento to ask for help.
“It’s a tough message to have to give, but obviously what we want to do is keep everything on life support because this program has to survive. My theme for today is this is day one of our effort to get the money to make this program successful.”
He said the governor and Legislature swept $1.4 billion from the judiciary’s construction coffers during the state’s recession, resulting in today’s funding shortage. The fund recently helped pay for a $490 million courthouse in Long Beach.
And while the fine and fee revenue on which the construction fund relies was stable when it was established in 2008, projections have fallen drastically in recent years.
“Then amnesty came along and the revenues started going off a cliff,” Hill said, referring to Gov. Jerry Brown’s temporary program that reduces fines for unpaid traffic tickets.
“Now that the state is back on firm footing and essentially back on track, we’d like our money back. We don’t think it’s a difficult thing to ask for, because it’s our money. It was generated through fines and fees. It was designated to rebuild courthouses and we feel it’s perfectly appropriate, since we helped out during the state’s time of need, to remind the other branches of government that because of that redirection of our funds, that we need our money back,” he said.
The committee decided to recommend to the Judicial Council at its meeting later this month that the courts be allowed to finish their current phases, but go no further.
This will mean holding projects in El Dorado, Inyo, Los Angeles and Mendocino counties after completing site acquisition.
Projects in Riverside, Sacramento, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Lake, Santa Barbara and the Los Angeles mental health court will hold after completing preliminary design. Courthouses in Siskiyou, Imperial, Riverside, Shasta, Tuolumne and Glenn counties were scheduled to start construction this year, but will also be delayed.
Prior to the vote, judges from the affected counties relayed grim stories of crumbling buildings, scant security, mold, floods, broken toilets and asbestos.
The judges spoke of inaccessible restrooms for the disabled, no jury rooms and inadequate holding cells for in-custody defendants. They pointed to disabled litigants crawling up stairs to get to hearings or suffering the indignity of being carried by bailiffs, and judges’ chambers that opened into public hallways where shackled inmates shuffled past waiting jurors, witnesses, and victims.
“We’ve had a particular uptick in instances of security concerns lately. There have been assaults that are starting to be pretty regular,” Presiding Judge Christopher Plourd of Imperial County said, noting that judges have to walk right past holding cells, and that recently a deputy public defender was assaulted in a crowded hallway.
“The holding cells essentially open up right into common hallways. We walk out of our chambers and the inmates are right there. I’m surprised no judicial officer has been harmed at this particular point,” he said.
Judge Andrew Blum of Lake County described his courthouse as an overcrowded deathtrap.
“We have approximately 15,000 square feet for four courtrooms,” he said. “Even with the loss of 30 percent of our staff due to budget cuts, we still have clerks sitting in desks that are shoved into hallways and closets.”
He continued, “Our jurors just stand out in the hallway, sometimes for hours, and they are standing out there with defendants, witnesses, attorneys, you name it. They are also out there with inmates because we have to parade them through the public hallways. The jailers will come and ask them to please step back but we’re in an eight-foot hallway. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
“I just finished a special-circumstance first-degree murder gang-related case. Last Friday, while my jury was assembling out in the hallway, they were being lobbied,” he added, noting that he spent the rest of the morning interviewing each individual juror and it came close to being a mistrial.
The building itself is also on the verge of collapse, Blum said.
“It’s like a role model of how to build an unsafe building,” he said. “It’s incredibly poorly built. I’m no structural engineer but I don’t know how that thing is still standing. There’s no first floor. The second, third and fourth floors are cantilevered over the parking lot. They had to go back and retrofit it with a couple of very large pillars. One of them goes right through my chambers. We had an earthquake on Tuesday, a 5.1. If it had been a little bigger I’d be here telling you we don’t have a courthouse.”
The criminal courthouse in Sacramento also suffers from structural problems and overcrowding, according to Presiding Judge Kevin Culhane.
“Visualize a shoebox-shaped building with one long end facing San Francisco and one end facing east toward the Sierra. For all the courtrooms facing the west, there is no entrance to the courtroom for in-custody defendants except through the judges’ chambers. For the east, all in-custody defendants must be transported through the public hallways,” Culhane said. “We’ve had any number of dangerous events in those public hallways. Just last year an attorney was seriously injured and hospitalized when he was attacked by a defendant. Just last Friday somebody tried to bring a loaded .357 through those hallways.”
Culhane also noted the lack of fire sprinklers on any floor above the second level.
“If a fire breaks out on the second floor or down below, you’re not getting out,” he said.
Judge James Bianco of Los Angeles, who hears cases in the only mental health court in the county, said, “The worst thing about our courthouse is the lockup. Our caseload has skyrocketed; it’s gone up 500 percent in the last five years. We’re under tremendous pressure to cram as many people in the lockup as we can.”
Bianco said he dreams of a new mental health facility where defendants can be held in humane holding cells. Currently, inmates awaiting hearings are stuffed into tiny mesh cages.
“You’re putting people who are seriously mentally ill in cages without plumbing or toilets. It’s really inhumane. I think of our obligations under the canons of ethics to treat people with dignity and respect, and we’re ordering people to be brought to court and housed in cages like animals,” he said.
The current mental health courthouse, located in an old mustard factory from the 1930s, sees people charged with murder, sex crimes or other violent felonies, along with hospital patients and people on psychiatric holds.
“You pack all these people into this lobby, and you’ve got a very violent person sitting next to someone who is potentially very vulnerable,” Bianco said. “I think the chief justice when she visited our courthouse in 2013 perhaps described it best when she said, ‘This is a real powder keg.'”
The faces around the committee table displayed various states of shock and disgust as testimony wore on. At the end of the day, Justice Hill assured the judges that his committee would fight for their courthouses.
“It’s all hands on deck. Things are looking dire and we need to get to work. I don’t think anyone can look at this and say we don’t need that money.”
Though the committee hasn’t scheduled any trips to speak with legislators yet, Hill said, “We’re starting talks with all of the courts next week about getting to Sacramento.”
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/08/12/new-courthouses-mothballed-in-calif-amid-money-woes.htm
Quote of the day: “ “Now that the state is back on firm footing and essentially back on track, we’d like our money back. We don’t think it’s a difficult thing to ask for, because it’s our money.” Justice Brad Hill
No, Justice Hill, it is not your money. It’s the public’s money. The same public money you and the rest of the idiots who pass yourselves off as judicial branch “leadership” have done, and continue to do, such an excellent job of wasting. And all you can do is continue to beg poverty and demand more money and more money and more money from the State Legislature and the public. Bet those billions all of you wasted on CCMS is looking pretty good right about now,.
Not your money, Justice Hill. NOT your money. The public’s money. And you and the rest of branch “leadership” don’t deserve more of it nor can any of you be trusted with more of it. NOT your money.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
Michael Paul
August 12, 2016
No justice hill, it is not your money. It is the spoils of looting the public and poor as they traverse the roads they paid for. Amnesty is at the very bottom rung of what the judiciary should be doing for drivers.
Brad, by your reasoning, you live in my house. I paid for the motherfucker. You work in my office building too.
I want my money back.
{walksoffgrumblingaboutafuckingwhinerwithentitlementissues}
Wendy Darling
August 12, 2016
Exactly.
Long live the ACJ,
wearyant
August 13, 2016
“I want my money back.”
Oooo, boy, would that set an interesting and dangerous precedent. Picture the Great Unwashed pressing against the gates, demanding their taxpayer funds they’ve paid in returned.
Long live the ACJ
unionman575
August 13, 2016
Exactly!
Lando
August 13, 2016
Well let’s see here. Insiders like Hill were on the Judicial Council when millions on top of millions were poured down the CCMS rathole. He and HRH-2 and the other recycled Judicial Council “leadership” supported and approved the waste of many more millions on the totally excessive Long Beach courthouse. Now places like Lake and Sacto that really need some help and relief suffer because of the arrogance and waste that the insiders at 455 Golden Gate inflicted on the entire branch . It is time to connect the dots. The public ill served and the courts adversely effected should stand up and demand that the Judicial Council be democratized . The culture of total arrogance established by Ronald George and continued by HRH-2 , Justice Miller, Justice Humes Judge So and the other insiders who silence their critics has totally failed as the Judicial Council never fails to fail as it was the easiest thing to do .
Michael Paul
August 13, 2016
Don’t judges have wide leverage in imposing fines? How about something like make a 250.00 donation to the court construction fund and we’ll dismiss the citation. Previously, cities were doing this to courts and the state through charging you with a non-moving violation for breaking a city speed ordinance. (the city got all the money) ( I got hit with one of those in the city of Alameda)
Benefits:
1. The ticket might become affordable than a mover carrying all those assessments
2. Brad Hill gets to keep his loot to build more 60 million dollar storage facilities.
3. Drivers don’t end up paying an increase in their insurance premiums.
Drawbacks:
There is nothing left to split with the local municipality and the state but they’ll get the message that the courts need to be fed and that the pile of assessments is excessive.
unionman575
August 14, 2016
No ‘Queen for a Day’ among counties pleading for courthouse bucks
http://www.modbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/jeff-jardine/article95548122.html
wearyant
August 14, 2016
Pleading for courthouse bucks. This is insanely sad. All of the remarks about those 19th century buildings are compelling, yet the JC bureaucrats appear helpless now. I remember the early 90s some fresh faced bureaucrats snuffling around to all the courthouses accompanied by [King] Ronald George wooing the county judges with fine tales of their scheme — and the judges would NEVER have to go to the legislature, hat in hand, begging for public funds again. Don’t worry, judgie-poos, we’ll take care of you, just drop your worries at our doorsteps. You do your judging and we will take care of those demeaning tasks … I remember the judges demanding assurances that their power in their own counties would not change, it would not be usurped — oh, noooo, sweet judgie-poos, no, we wouldn’t do that, we respect you, we are your staff … ROTFLMAO. It is too bad and so sad. Oh, for the ability to look into the future. The AOC, now assuming the misnomer of JC staff, should really be abolished. It’s not too late to do the right thing. Those repairs on the aging courthouses could be started tomorrow.
Long live the ACJ
unionman575
August 15, 2016
The AOC, now assuming the misnomer of JC staff, should really be abolished.
Mycotic
August 15, 2016
Cause a BSA audit of the CJP on Wed and be unlawfully sentenced to jail by Friday? https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/cause-an-audit-of-the-cjp-on-wed-be-ordered-to-jail-by-friday/