There goes our promised ten years of funding!
On September 9th, the Jacobs cadre of companies rushed their custom crafted legislation into court arguing that they should not be held accountable for being unlicensed and should not be required to pay the people of the State of California back.
For twenty one days it appeared that this position was uncontested by the judicial council. Our primary financier extended the judicialcouncilwatcher.com name for an additional four years and notified us that it appears checks were on the way to support base operations for another ten years because the position was uncontested and it looked like the judicial council was intent on throwing in the towel. And then last Friday, the council finally did respond and it was posted to the courts website this morning.
In our own analysis of the law, it appeared that the new laws four prongs could not all be met by the Jacobs cadre because corporations are people too and one companies license should have no effect on another companies lack of license. And so, we endorsed the new and final changes that were passed by the legislature and signed by the Gov. It appeared that Jacobs was arguing indirectly that corporations should not be considered as individuals – but as one big happy family that met the new threshold.
Certainly, leading up to the new law, the legislature considered and rejected modifying other prongs of the law that might have permitted the Jacobs cadre to wiggle free of responsibility which would have created a huge mess for those already convicted of operating without a license ala the retroactive provisions of the new law. These changes are what the Jacobs cadre sought – to gut contractors licensing laws retroactively for their own benefit.
In their response, the judicial council focused on just the one company that held the contract and never renewed their license – Jacobs Facilities. They (rightfully) argued that Jacobs Facilities never made any attempt to renew their license. And in doing so, should the judge buy their argument, the council will prevail and we lose the promised funding (which is fine by us – we’d like to wind down when it looks like the council is on a proper course)
Hopefully this case will be wrapped up by next month so stay tuned.