text:
Digital Purgatory
"Team George" – The Players
Court Reporters by County/Court
Judicial Council & AOC in the news
Judicial Council Watcher
California's 9.1 billion dollar reality check
Myth vs. Fact – Making the Case for an AOC Audit
Last week, the Chief Justice told an audience in Riverside, "There is a presumption, somehow, in the capitol in Sacramento that the judicial branch is where it is now, with courtrooms closed and less services . . . because somehow, somehow, we mismanaged ourselves into the situation. . . . I have to remind them, 'You took $1.5 billion from us,' that's how we're here. . . ."
We agree. Yes, the executive branch and the Legislature think that the judiciary has mismanaged its money. The Governor himself has said so. And yes, we're not getting the funding we need to perform our basic functions. We need only count the number of shuttered courtrooms for proof of that sad fact.
But there is a link between these two points. We're not getting adequate funding precisely because we're perceived to have mismanaged our money. That's why, whether you like the AOC or not, it's vital that we all support Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer's call for a complete audit of the AOC. Regardless of its outcome, it would go a long way to restore our credibility with the other branches of government and bolster our appeal for better funding.
We note with concern the lack of enthusiasm with which the Chief Justice greeted the news of the audit proposal. The Chief Justice issued a statement in which she complained of "a fourth AOC audit in three years."
We take it that she is counting among those audits the 2011 review of the CCMS project by the State Auditor [available at this link]. That audit found that the AOC planned the project poorly, entered into unfavorable contracts, failed to conduct a meaningful cost-benefit analysis, and provided misleading information to the Legislature. This audit led to the termination of the program, saving the taxpayers well over $1 billion.
Perhaps the Chief Justice is including among these four audits the August 2012 Pegasus Global Holdings audit of the Court Capital Construction Program [available at this link]. That report concluded (at p. 5) that "there is no universal agreement or understanding within the Program (at any level) as to the ultimate Owner of the Program. Thus, the actual Owner [the Judicial Council] may not be exercising its responsibility to examine and make crucial funding decisions from a program perspective."
The Chief Justice may also be counting the March 2013 review of judicial branch procurement [available here], in which the State Auditor found deficiencies in the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual and inaccuracies in the AOC's semiannual reports. Or the December 2013 review [available here], in which the State Auditor found "pervasive deficiencies" in two information systems that "could compromise the security and availability of the AOC's and superior courts' information systems." The State Auditor further faulted the AOC for providing information in a format that was difficult to use.
The Chief Justice might also be referring to the Legislative Analyst Office's review of the Long Beach Courthouse public-private partnership [available here], which states that the courthouse could have been built for $160 million less in net present value terms had the AOC used a traditional procurement approach.
The Chief Justice specifically numbers the 2012 SEC report [available here] among the four audits. That isn't quite correct. The SEC report was not an audit—it says so in the report itself, at p. 181: "The SEC was not charged with conducting a financial audit of the AOC and was not provided the resources to review financial data at that level." One of its lead authors, Judge Charles Wachob, specifically told the Judicial Council that the SEC report is not a "formal audit." [See here, at 13:50]. Nevertheless, the SEC report was thorough, and it was blistering in its criticisms of the AOC's financial management: "A consistent issue that emerged in this review is that the AOC budget process is not transparent."
All of these reviews and audits have two things in common. First, each was limited in its scope and nature. The Pegasus Global Holdings report, for example, reviewed only six construction projects. The State Auditor's reports on procurement focused only on procurement practices involving six counties. None of these reviews was designed to do what Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer's review seeks to do: find money that can be better spent on the trial courts.
Second—and most important—each report found fault with the way in which the AOC conducts its business. The message we're getting over and over from review after review is that there's something fundamentally wrong at 455 Golden Gate Avenue.
If the AOC and the Judicial Council are tired of getting audited, they can start doing things differently. They can open their books and open their meetings. In the meantime, at a time when local court staffs have been gutted, brand-new courthouses are threatened with closure, and citizens have to drive for hours to seek justice, the very least that the AOC and the Council can do is justify the way they spend our branch's money.
The Chief Justice notes that the AOC is about to undergo another audit by the Department of Finance. By implying that other audits will somehow render a legislative audit superfluous, the current chief justice seems to be borrowing a page out of the playbook of former Chief Justice George. He sought to head off the CCMS audit by claiming that the massive project was already being reviewed by the State Chief Information Officer. That gambit failed, and we were spared a billion-dollar financial hit.
We close with the words of the SEC report:
"The AOC has not been credible or transparent concerning such important matters as budgeting, staffing levels, hiring freezes and furloughs, large-scale projects, and other areas of importance. . . . This lack of full disclosure—or shading information to make it appear more favorable to the AOC—has created mistrust. Unless credibility and trustworthiness are instilled as core organizational values, modeled from the top down, the AOC cannot expect to be successful in its dealings with its employees, the courts, the Legislature, its stakeholders, and the public."
If the Judicial Council and the AOC really want to make credibility and trustworthiness their core values, if they want to dispel the notion that they are mismanaging our money, they can join us in seeking a legislative audit, rather than complaining about one.
If you have not already joined the Alliance of California Judges, we ask that you consider doing so at this critical time. In order to join, you need only hit "reply" to this email and indicate your desire to be part of an organization whose main objective is keeping our courts properly staffed and open to the public.
Directors, Alliance of California Judges
A member communique from the Alliance of California Judges last week-
On behalf of our 500 member judges, we applaud Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer for having the courage to request a thorough and independent audit of the AOC and the Judicial Council. We attach this link to Maria Dinzeo's article in yesterday's Courthouse News that details the scope of his request. The audit request specifically asks, among other things, the key question: Are there available funds that can be redirected to trial court operations for the immediate future?
As many of you know, the Alliance has been seeking a legislative audit of the AOC's financial operations for a long time. We are deeply grateful that Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer responded when we reached out and he has taken up the cause of judicial branch transparency.
If the Joint Legislative Audit Committee approves the request, then the State Auditor will take a close look the AOC and Judicial Council budgets to determine, in the words of the audit request, whether "public funds are being utilized in the most effective manner."
This audit proposal presents a no-lose situation for the judicial branch. If—as we suspect—the audit uncovers waste and inefficiency, then the misallocated money can be redirected to the trial courts. If the audit finds that everything is in order, then the Chief Justice and branch leaders can make a much stronger case to a skeptical Governor and Legislature for the $1.2 billion increase they now seek for branch funding over the next three years. We repeat the request that we made in a recent letter to the Chief Justice—a letter that has gone unanswered—that she join the Alliance in seeking this audit.
Back in 2011, the Chief Justice said, "I believe in absolute transparency." Just last year, the AOC's administrative officer, Curt Soderland, wrote: "As always, we welcome audits of the judicial branch." This audit request is a chance for our branch leaders to stand by what they said.
Join us in backing Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer's brave efforts to bring some accountability back to an agency that stubbornly and arrogantly resists it. Please contact the members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and voice your support for a comprehensive audit of the AOC.
From JCW:
We're going to refer to this as part one of making the case. We've been having some technical difficulties with newly composed posts vanishing when they are saved to draft or published. The reason we mention this is because we will be supplying additional reasons for a broad and thorough audit of both the judicial council and the AOC. We did it in a post last week that was among a few that vaporized when published.
Tagged: Ministry of Truth, Ronald M. George, State Auditor, Strategic Evaluation Committee, Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Posted in: AOC, Branch Boondoggles, California State Assembly, California State Senate, California's Executive Branch, Flapdoodles & Pravda Propaganda, Judicial Council of California, Legislation, State of California, Trial Courts
← Retreads and Denial – A Strange Way To Restore Credibility
Help us make the case for a JC / AOC audit →
63 Responses "Myth vs. Fact – Making the Case for an AOC Audit" →
unionman575
More fine work ACJ & JCW.
And the Death Star responds with a new "Fact Check":
http://www.courts.ca.gov/25095.htm?print=1
The AOC's fact check as usual fails to pass muster.
This fact check and the lobbying being undertaken to kill the mother of all audits should serve to effortlessly telegraph to any half-wit or better that they have something to hide and that they don't want an audit of the size and scope being proposed.
I remember avoiding an audit to be a legislative priority for the council this year as well…..
Q: Why would you want to intentionally avoid an audit when you are clamoring for cash?
A: The leadership is a bunch of crooks and doesn't want anyone to know that so that they can preserve their hold on power.
Wendy Darling
From the AOC's "Fact" Sheet, with appropriate wordsmithing from the folks on the 5th floor of 455 Golden Gate Avenue:
"Beyond audits, the Judicial Council and AOC also report regularly to the Legislature. In 2013, the agency sent the legislature approximately 30 required reports, totaling hundreds of pages. Some reports are due annually, biennially, or quarterly."
Real Fact: The Judicial Council/AOC's reports to the State Legislature lack transparency and are of limited usefulness. Source: investigative findings of the California Bureau of State Audits and State Auditor Elaine Howle.
Still serving themselves to the detriment of all Californians.
Long live the ACJ.
And now a word from the LAO:
Click to access criminal-justice-021914.pdf
This is a great paragraph in this LAO document because it directly addresses the speak with one voice crowd and suggests that the legislature themselves convene a task force to wring out efficiencies. (and in doing so, exercise their checks and balances role)
There are many advantages for the legislature to get involved. For one, they might spot areas of law that they passed at an earlier date that is fouling up the wheels of progress.
They might also be able to correct or adjust areas of the law most complained about to JCW by others. Far and away the majority of those complaints involve family law and the big busine$$ of divorce that has swallowed common sense.
You don't see them because we discourage people posting about their own cases. But to summarize some of the issues, people aren't getting divorced because people can't afford it. Others are being bankrupted by coin detected in pocket divorce industry specialists who will turn no conflict into high conflict at the drop of a hat.
Another area is probate, where there have been many allegations of people being assigned to look after valuable estates and instead of distributing assets they liquidate to pay their own fees, leaving nothing but unpaid invoices left.
Legislature Could Convene a Task Force to Recommend Efficiencies
The Legislature could consider convening an independent task force—consisting of a broad range of judicial branch stakeholders—to comprehensively evaluate court processes and identify operational efficiencies that would reduce costs to the courts, improve delivery of court services, and increase access to court services. Although similar task forces have been convened in the past, these groups have only provided the Legislature with recommendations for which there is unanimous consensus.
Consequently, the recommendations of these task forces have been limited in scope. To maximize the menu of efficiencies available for legislative consideration, the Legislature could direct the task force to identify all efficiencies proposed by stakeholders, along with an assessment of each efficiency's impact (fiscal or otherwise). Dissenting members would then be allowed to provide their concerns and rationale for opposition. This would then enable the Legislature to consider a broad range of efficiencies as well as the fiscal and policy implications of each option.
sharonkramer
Any hope of restoring the judicial branch to the "predicate for justice" in the public's best interest, is predicated by the dire need of a BSA forensic audit of the AOC/JC.
Whoever wrote this ACJ piece could not have done a finer job of driving home that indisputable fact. Thank you for writing and sharing this. (you too, JCW!)
R. Campomadera
"There is a presumption, somehow, in the capitol in Sacramento that the judicial branch is where it is now, with courtrooms closed and less services . . . because somehow, somehow, we mismanaged ourselves into the situation. . . . I have to remind them, 'You took $1.5 billion from us,' that's how we're here. . . ."
What? How short the CJ's memory is…the SEC Report, commissioned by the Feckless One herself, found gross examples of mismanagement and made sensible recommendations for the resolution thereof.
And what has she done in response? Ask for more money and piously pretend nothing is wrong with the way the Branch is being run. Good grief. Earth to Tani. Is anyone there???
wearyant
"The message we're getting over and over from review after review is that there's something fundamentally wrong at 455 Golden Gate Avenue."
Amen. I'm more than confident Wendy D will agree.
Excellent work, ACJ. Thank you too, JCW.
I just wish members of the unwashed horde could join ACJ. In the meantime, I'm grateful for this website!
What Ant said. 🙂
YoloanR
Thank you for a terrific post, and kudos to Assembly Member Reggie Jones-Sawyer.
If not a bother, I would like to inform you of a suit I filed against Judicial Council member David Rosenberg and spouse, Ms. Lea Rosenberg.
For a read of the entire suit, please click on the link below. I am, however, enclosing the first part which reads:
Plaintiff – an individual residing in Yolo County, an investigative reporter and a Rabbi — has been subject to a campaign of systemic harassment ever since he uncovered corruption in various matters dealing with Boyd Gaming Director, owner of various casinos, and class-action attorney Thomas Girardi ("Girardi") of Girardi & Keese in connection with financial corruption involving California Democratic Party operatives.
2. For example, Plaintiff unearthed the fact that subsequent to being disciplined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stemming from an attempt to defraud the court by resorting to the 'use of known falsehoods', the State Bar of California appointed as 'special prosecutor' to Girardi's own private malpractice lawyer (Jerome Falk of Howard Rice) to prosecute Girardi on the State Bar's behalf. (When later questioned about this matter, Falk, seeking to mislead Plaintiff, told Plaintiff that his firm had represented the law firm of Girardi & Keese, but not Girardi himself.)
3. Plaintiff also discovered corruption in a national class-action case (Fogel v. Farmers) whereas Girardi – who represented the class of plaintiffs – never disclosed that the attorney who represented defendant Farmers was concurrently representing Girardi in a separate legal matter. Very shortly after Plaintiff exposed the corruption, attorneys for Farmers approached, sought and obtained from the court a supplemental notice to the class of plaintiffs (consisting of 14 million Americans) indicating that if they cashed their settlement checks, they agreed to not sue Farmers or Girardi because of the undisclosed relationship.
4. Plaintiff also unearthed corruption involving Girardi (who has a reputation of 'bankrolling' the California Democratic party) and individuals associated with the California Democratic Party with connections to the California Public Utilities Commission/Energy Commission (Michael Peevey, Tim Simon, Geoffrey Brown, Peter Arth, Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Darrell Steinberg) and utility lawyers involved in the 'California Energy Crisis' (Ron Olson and Jeff Bleich of Munger Tolles; James Brosnahan of Morrison & Foerster; John Keker of Keker & Van Nest; Jerry Falk and Douglas Winthrop of Howard Rice; Thomas Girardi of Girardi & Keese; Joe Cotchett of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; Mark Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson, and the law-offices of DLA Piper) to launder money from utility companies (SCE, PG&E, Verizon, AT&T) to various members of California Democratic Party (Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Kamala Harris, Jerry Brown, Kevin Johnson, Darrell Steinberg) and OBAMA FOR AMERICA via various non-profits (CaliforniaALL, Level Playing Field Institute, California Consumer Protection Foundation).
5. Also involved in the various financial schemes were Cache Creek Casino, Sacramento-based developer Mark Friedman of Fulcrum Property, his business partner (gambling attorney Howard Dickstein), and Dickstein's wife, Jeannine English, who was also acting on behalf of AARP to position Barack Obama in the White House and on behalf of Mark Friedman to position Kevin Johnson as the mayor of Sacramento. Additionally involved were Obama for America tech-guru Mitch Kapor and his wife, Freada Kapor Klein.
6. In connection with the above discoveries, Plaintiff informed various law-enforcement agencies of these facts, as well as filed ethics complaints against some of the above named attorneys with the State Bar of California.
7. Plaintiff has been repeatedly warned that Girardi is 'well-connected' and will seek to silence Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff's discoveries and allegations.
8. Indeed, very shortly after Plaintiff unearthed these events, a posse of eight armed investigators from the Yolo County District Attorney's office executed an invalid search warrant at Plaintiff's place of residence in Yolo County and confiscated all documents and computers in his home relating to, inter alia, various ethics complaints filed by Plaintiff on the ground that the ethics complaints were baseless.
9. Plaintiff has been informed by credible sources, and thereon alleges, that David Rosenberg was one of those responsible for pressing criminal charges against him, that he 'cleared the way' for the search warrant, and that he is otherwise friendly with Howard Dicsktein, Mark Friedman, Jerry Brown, Mark Robinson, and Chief Marshall McKay of Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (all actors in CaliforniaALL — a sham non-profit launched for the purpose of laundering funds to finance the campaigns of various politicians, including President Obama, Kamala Harris, Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, and Governor Jerry Brown.
PART II: BACKGROUND OF FACTS UNDERLYING CLAIMS AGAINST LEA ROSENBERG AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA'S BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 — PREDICATED ON 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)
10. Following the execution of the invalid search warrant on Plaintiff's home, described above, Plaintiff began conducting research into David Rosenberg's background and learned that he is a judge with the Yolo County Superior Court with a reputation of being a 'political animal'.
11. Plaintiff further learned, and thereupon alleges, that David Rosenberg and his wife (Lea Rosenberg) are deeply involved — as either officers or directors — with a web of non-profit entities worth millions of dollars known as Saratoga Retirement Community, Meadows of Napa Valley, Davis Odd Fellows, Odd Fellows Homes of California, Davis Rebekah Lodge, Soroptimist International of Davis, and others.
12. Plaintiff also discovered that Lea Rosenberg — as the wife of a judge – was energetically raising funds from various businesses. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lea Rosenberg is an individual residing in Yolo County.
13. Judge Rosenberg's judicial campaign treasurer, Victor Bucher, is a nationally renowned expert in the area of accounting and tax fraud, and also serves as the 'treasurer' of a separate non-profit entity launched by David Odd Fellows — Davis Odd Fellows Charities, Inc. — where David Rosenberg serve as president and Bucher as Treasurer.
Continue :
http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2014/02/05/suit-accuses-cambron-rosenberg-raven-of-fraudulant-concealment-17721877/
Nathaniel Woodhull
The Judicial Council Watcher plays an incredibly important role in the dissemination of truthful information.
Before the advent of the JCW and the AOC Watcher, many judicial employees and judicial officers felt there were no avenues or outlets for the expression of dissent and/or blatant abuses being foisted upon the Judicial Branch by HRH-1 King George, the Judicial Council and AOC.
I recall a Superior Court Judge appointed in 2005 who informed me that she was "reported" by AOC staff during her New Judge Orientation Course when she questioned AOC on their insistence that he/she accept that he/she was an "employee" and reported to the AOC. When the Judge refused to fill out a form requested by the AOC staff, he/she was immediately labeled as a "heretic" and was subjected to countless abuses during the remainder of the program.
Those of us who have stood up to the JC/AOC since the "takeover" by HRH-1 have been subjected to ridicule and contempt. Someone who was rated as "exemplary" before the takeover was suddenly "questioned" regarding their abilities toward advancement.
From personal experience I can assure you that any judicial officer questioning the "party line" within the hallowed halls of the Crystal Palace will be immediately labeled and absent direct access to the Governor their career is at an end. A sad reality of life.
Keep up the good work JCW!!!!
The audit is essential for the citizens of California. The "Fact Checks" issued by the AOC are laughable.
Governor Brown will undoubtedly continue to strangle the Judiclal Branch financially until HRH-2 decides to "retire" so that he may appoint a new Chief Justice.
Tani, take the hint…. get out of town…
I know the truth of what you say, General Woodhull. Some of us have personally sat in meetings at 455 Golden Gate Avenue where the abhorrent retribution and retaliation of which you speak was openly discussed and embraced as a "management technique." A related management technique was to mercilessly punish anyone who reported this behavior.
It is disturbing that this happened, especially as sanctioned behavior in the administration of the California judicial branch. A place where values and ethics were supposed to matter. But what is really egregious, especially for a branch administration that touts itself as "the predicate for democracy," is that this behavior continues at 455 Golden Gate Avenue to this very day, and is permitted to do so.
Just one more thing, of many, that hasn't materially changed in the last 4 years. Queen Feckless indeed.
"There is a presumption, somehow, in the capitol in Sacramento that the judicial branch is where it is now, with courtrooms closed and less services . . . because somehow, somehow, we mismanaged ourselves into the situation. . ." Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye
In other words, "we" didn't "mismanage" anything. It's just a "perception" problem.
Anyone who has worked at 455 Golden Gate Avenue in the past ten years has likely heard one, or all, of the following statements: (1) Protect the Chief; (2) Make sure (fill in the blank) has plausible deniability; (3) it's a perception problem.
"It's a perception problem", as in:" ______ (judge, court, Governor, etc.) doesn't agree with us (the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, the AOC) on an issue. We need to change their perception." This was to be accomplished by repeating the position of the Chief Justice/Judicial Council/AOC over and over again, in any available forum, and, when repeated often enough, this position would then become the accepted truth of the issue. "It's all about perception. Perception is reality." (An almost exact quote.)
Here's a reality check for the Office of the Chief Justice, the Judicial Council, and the AOC: Everyone that matters in Sacramento is fully aware at this point that more money isn't going to fix what is really wrong with the California Judicial Branch. It's not a perception problem; it's a reality problem.
" It's not a perception problem; it's a reality problem."
Yes, you're right, Wendy D. Thus, we've all been watching the saddest and most tragic reality show these past many years here on JCW. It's as if you're fascinated by a filthy, scary snake; it's hard to take your eyes off it. And the show continues on with new twists and turns …
Or a slow motion train wreck, with Engineer Feckless at the throttle.
The posts above offer many great insights into the dysfunctional behavior of our so called "branch leaders ", at 455 Golden Gate. One thing is for sure. You can always count on the insiders to use the same playbook when their backs are against the wall. When the ACJ had the good sense to ask for an audit of CCMS, Justice Bruiners told the very same audit committee, CCMS worked great, was ready to be deployed and didn't need to be audited again as it was subject to prior legislative review. As it turned out none of that was accurate once an independent legislative audit was performed. CCMS didn't work, would never work and was not ready for deployment. The only way the truth came to light was from an independent legislative audit of 455 Golden Gate, an audit HRH-1 bitterly fought. Today 4 years later we hear the same from Queen Feckless and her entourage. And like 4 years ago a full and complete legislative audit will prove the " insiders" wrong again.
The OBT
Your right Lando , Queen Tani and her supporters roam the Capitol denigrating the voices of reform and fighting any call for opening their books. Why? They have lots to hide. If everything was so new and Improved and "transparent", why in the world would they object to an audit? Maybe AOC insider , Mr Childs could answer that question for all of us ?
Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. Those with plenty to hide roam the hallways of the State Capitol denigrating the voices of reform and fighting any call for opening their books.
Let us talk about what the Fact Check lol doesn't address. The give away to 30 AOC insiders who never paid into their retirements. Mr Kelso's benefits for work unrelated to the trial courts. The billion dollar Long Beach courthouse rent fiasco. The continuing hiring of AOC employees while trial courts are forced to layoff employees and close courthouses. The Shapiro fund How did it start and where did it end up? The thousands spent on JC/ AOC perks, travel, hotels, and security including CHP drivers. The refusal of Queen Tani to close the crystal palace and move to more moderate surroundings in Sacramento. While it is easier for the 455 Golden Gate insiders to attack and denigrate, the taxpayers of this state deserve some answers.From Queen Tani right on down to Mr Childs, all of us are waiting.
Reminder: If you are so inclined, don't forget to contact the deciding legislators to voice your support for the need of a forensic BSA audit; and to let Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer know that you appreciate his efforts. Seems like it could be beneficial if they heard from AOC/branch employees — in addition to the judges.
California Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Assembly Member Adam C. Gray, Chair
Website: legaudit.assembly.ca.gov/
California Assembly Member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Public Safety, Chair
Website: http://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/sub5publicsafety
Brown's $100 Million Hike for Courts Falls Short, Report Says
Cheryl Miller, The Recorder
Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202643769670/Brown%27s-%24100-Million-Hike-for-Courts-Falls-Short%2C-Report-Says#ixzz2tsSLjZNj
SACRAMENTO — The extra $100 million the governor proposes to give California's trial courts in 2014-15 may not be enough to offset rising costs, according to a report issued Wednesday by the state legislative analyst's office.
The non-partisan LAO concluded that increased employee pension and benefits costs—expected to run $64 million in the red by June 30—combined with ongoing funding cuts from previous years and fewer cash accounts to borrow from "could result in reduced levels of service to the public" from the courts.
"In order to effectively absorb ongoing budget reductions, additional changes to make the courts operate more efficiently will likely need to be adopted," the LAO said in its review of the governor's budget proposal for the judiciary.
The report mirrors the complaints of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and other branch leaders that Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to boost the judiciary budget by $100 million doesn't go far enough. Branch finance officials say the courts need another $266 million in 2014-15 just to keep operating at their current level. Cantil-Sakauye also released a three-year proposal that seeks more than $1.1 billion in new funding to restore services.
The LAO said lawmakers may want to increase Brown's $100 million. It doesn't say by how much, but it does suggest any additional money should come with strings.
"We recommend that the Legislature establish priorities for how the increased funding should be spent—for example, increasing access to court services," the report said. "We also recommend that the Legislature require the courts to report on the expected use of such funds prior to allocation and on the actual use of the funds near the end of the fiscal year."
Such reporting requirements were tied to the extra $63 million the judiciary received in the current fiscal year. The oversight language reflects a sentiment among some in the Capitol—a sentiment Cantil-Sakauye acknowledged but rejected in a recent speech—that the branch needs to make better spending decisions. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles, recently expressed those same concerns in requesting a broad state audit of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The LAO also recommended the Legislature set in statute performance standards that would measure how efficiently each court operates.
"Once data on these measurements have been reported by the Judicial Council for at least two years, we recommend that the Legislature establish a system for holding individual courts accountable for their performance relative to those standards," the report said.
Finally, the LAO took aim at the governor's 1 percent cap on trial court reserves, a policy set to take effect in July. Hated by the trial courts, the cap will create cash flow problems and hurt court officials' ability to sign contracts and make long-term spending decisions, the LAO concluded. The Legislature may consider raising the cap or finding other ways to free up cash for the courts, the analyst said. The governor's finance department, however, has been adamant in its support for the 1 percent cap.
The LAO's report is advisory only, but it often helps shape legislative budget discussions, which will start in earnest in the coming weeks.
From the Internet with a slight tweak from yours truly:
TWO COWS ~{Matthias Varga}
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor
The State takes both and gives you some milk
The State takes both and sells you some milk
The State takes both and shoots you
BUREAUCRATISM
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
The one on the left looks very attractive…
JC/AOC/CJ
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why
the cow has dropped dead.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.
Regardless of the analysis, you blame the Governor and the State Legislature.
You don't have any cows, but you are in charge of the care of two which belong to someone else.
You spill the milk from one cow into a stealth storage tank for you and your friends, claiming you don't know why there is not enough milk for people whose cows you are watching.
People figure out that two cows should produce more milk. They have a technician review your milking machine. She finds the hidden milk and issues a report which rightfully butchers you as a bad milkmaid.
Moral of Story: Dont' lie over spilled milk!
Go Charlie, Go! And Good Luck! Best Wishes!
http://www.calnewsroom.com/2014/02/07/charles-calderon-running-for-judge-in-los-angeles/
http://www.publicceo.com/2014/02/access-to-justice-in-la-worst-in-california/
Ooooo, Chief Feckless is a trend setter now. That's how her sycophants will spin this.
Click to access oc14-Feb_20.pdf
Council Approves Revisions to Funding Methodology for the Trial Courts
Changes include establishing an absolute funding floor for courts
SACRAMENTO—At its public meeting on February 20 in Sacramento, the Judicial Council approved recommendations from its Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee to make several revisions to the Workload-Based Allocation and Funding Methodology that was originally approved by the council last year at its April business meeting.
The methodology provides a transparent and equitable distribution of trial court funding, based on workload and the amount of time necessary to carry out that workload, among each of the 58 trial courts.
However, a strict application of the original workload-based model results in unrealistically low funding for the state's smallest courts. To address this issue, changes to the methodology approved by the council today include the establishment of an absolute funding floor for courts.
Other actions and discussions that took place at the council meeting:
State-Level Reserve Funding for Superior Court of Kings County: By statute, the Judicial Council after October 31 and before March 15 of each year may distribute the remaining funds from the 2 percent state level reserve set-aside in the Trial Court Trust Fund if there has been a request from a trial court(s) for unforeseen emergencies or unanticipated expenses for existing programs. At its meeting today and consistent with its action last year, the council considered recommended options and voted to approve the Superior Court of Kings County's application for $130,000 in supplemental funding for 2nd-year deployment costs of its new case management system, which is desperately needed to replace the antiquated legacy system that will no longer be supported by the county. In accordance with the reserve policy, the council also voted to distribute to all courts after March 15 a proportionate share of the unallocated funds from the 2 percent state-level reserve.
Funding for Criminal Justice Realignment, Court-Appointed Dependency Counsel, and Workers' Compensation Liabilities: The council approved a recommendation from its Trial Court Budget Advisory Committee to allocate $7.64 million in funding from the Trial Court Trust Fund and the State Trial Court Improvement and Modernization Fund for costs associated with criminal justice realignment, court-appointed dependency counsel, and the settlement of workers' compensation tail claim liabilities.
California State Auditor Report on AOC Procurement Practices: The council discussed and accepted a report on an audit released by the California State Auditor in December. The audit was the first required by the Judicial Branch Contract Law, passed in 2011. The State Auditor assessed implementation of the Judicial Branch Contract Law by the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Administrative Office of the Courts, and Habeas Corpus Resource Center. The audit found that although these entities are generally complying with the law's requirements and with the provisions of the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual, they need to improve certain practices. The AOC reported that it has already made many of the auditor's recommendations, continues to work on addressing others, and will provide another update on its progress at the council's April business meeting.
An archived audiocast of the entire meeting broken out by topic will be available on the February 20 council meeting webpage early next week.
"The AOC reported that it has already made many of the auditor's recommendations, continues to work on addressing others … "
Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah. Let's get an exhaustive and thorough audit by Howle going of the AOC. Time is money in this case. Every minute that passes before an audit is done, you can bet on your child's life that the AOC continues to fritter public funds away, never to be seen or found again or ever recovered.
""The AOC reported that it has already made many of the auditor's recommendations . . "
You know, because reports by the AOC are so . . truthful, accurate, transparent, reliable, trustworthy . . . not.
We can all trust the JC/AOC, haha. My favorite part of their transparent, reliable and trustworthy history was when they lied about the Department of Finance being the force behind having HRH-1 determine who should be PJ or Court CEO of a local trial court. Wasn't Mr Child the AOC lobbyist at this point in time? Despite many concerns raised about this as part of the SEC process no one at 455 Golden Gate has come clean.You still there Curt? HRH-1, Vickrey, Queen Feckless?. Anyone at 455 Golden Gate? Just one more reason for a complete hardworking and honest audit of the crystal palace and the " branch leaders" .
Heard some disturbing news yesterday of SWOV in SD and Canon violations — which predicate to keep those who aid to keep the House that George built on a solid foundation. So glad to hear that the LA ACJ judges are speaking out on new judge, Mr. Calderon's, behalf.
This week's installment of Tani's Follies. Published today, Friday, February 21, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
The quote of the day comes from Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
"Despite several budget cuts, the Judicial Council's budget grew while funding for trial court operations declined," Jones-Sawyer said. "For example, the Judicial Council's budget for 2013-2014 is stated at $141.5 million. This is $20.9 million more than was spent in 2011-2012."
Council Spends Emergency Funds Hears Support for Overall Audit of Finances
By MARIA DINZEO
(CN) – The Judicial Council gave struggling Kings County Superior Court $130,000 in emergency funds Thursday, where the emergency was a shortfall in payments for pricey software. In the same session, the council heard a judge's argument supporting an audit of the way the council and its underlying bureaucracy go about spending public funds.
On a 16-2 vote, the council approved a payment for Kings County to come out of a $35 million pot set aside for emergencies. The crisis in the Kings County court's finances is the inability to complete payments to Tyler Technologies for a new case management system.
The court is in its second year of a five-year, $2.11 million Tyler contract.
"We cannot fund our CMS program on the backs of our employees," Presiding Judge Thomas DeSantos said. "We have already taken drastic measures, we will continue to take drastic measures, but I cannot tell my people to take more furloughs or lay off more people."
The court has already closed its courthouse in Lemoore and cut hours at the Corcoran courthouse. It also cut two management positions and required 22 employee furlough days for roughly $900,000 in savings for fiscal year 2013-2014, but is still unable to fund the technology project without going into the red.
In addition to sending emergency funds to the Kings County court, the council decided to spend the remaining money in the emergency pot by distributing the rest of the $35 million to local courts before April 15, when the courts must report to the Legislature and the governor's Department of Finance.
Such spending has fueled a tech gold rush in the California court system. Local courts are emptying their local reserve funds by funding big-ticket items, such as multi-million-dollar software contracts. Anything left in the reserve funds at the end of June returns to the state.
In connection with overall spending by the courts, Judge Steve White of Sacramento urged the council Thursday to support an audit of spending by the council and the Administrative Office of the Courts. The audit was requested by Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer earlier this month, specifically referencing past spending of a half-billion dollars on software that was used by only a few courts and is now rapidly being ditched in favor of more recent technology.
White pointed out that the council has not voted on the audit but appears opposed. "I note with some interest that this body without a vote seems to be opposed to it," said the judge.
"In order for this body to have credibility, it needs to have an audit, just to find out how monies are spent in the AOC and the Judicial Council," said White. He said one critical purpose of an audit would be to find out "the priority of allocation of those monies."
"Neither the Legislature nor the Governor, nor the courts knows what that is," White told the council.
Jones-Sawyer, a Democrat from Los Angeles, requested the audit last week with a letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, noting that the council was hiking its own budget while starving the trial courts that directly serve the people of California.
"The Judicial Council and the AOC are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars annually," said the assembly member's letter. "As the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office do not currently receive a detailed annual budget for the Judicial Council or AOC, there exists no mechanism to ensure accountability of public funds with which it is entrusted."
"Despite several budget cuts, the Judicial Council's budget grew while funding for trial court operations declined," he said. "For example, the Judicial Council's budget for 2013-2014 is stated at $141.5 million. This is $20.9 million more than was spent in 2011-2012."
The audit will be conducted by the Bureau of State Audits, which, in an earlier 2011 audit, found the court administrative office had spent hundreds of millions in public funds on the Court Case Management system, a statewide software project that was terminated in 2012.
"The audit uncovered mismanagement, waste, and a lack of meaningful oversight that led to the program's eventual termination," said the letter from Jones-Sawyer. "As a result, taxpayers saved hundreds of millions of dollars, and members of the public who must rely on courts were spared even deeper cuts to services."
Jones-Sawyer chairs the Assembly budget sub-committee that funds the courts.
The administrative office's director, Steven Jahr, rejected the letter's points.
"The Judicial Council and AOC's operation budget and expenditures represent 3.6 percent of the overall branch budget and have gone down," Jahr told the council.
In his statement to the council, White rejected that claim, saying there is no way of knowing where the money goes without an independent review.
"The reporting is opaque and anything but transparent," said White. "There's a lot of hide-the-ball. The courts need to regain confidence in the AOC and the Judicial Council and it doesn't happen without that audit."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/21/65553.htm
Long live Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer and Judge White. And long live the ACJ.
Thank you Assembly member Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Judge White ACJ, and of course, all of you here on JCW.
Nothing like public access…right Tani ?
http://www.mercedcourt.org/
Merced Superior Court Public Notice
Please be advised – The Merced Superior Court Clerks Offices will be closed to the public at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, February 21, 2014.
Drop boxes are available at the following locations: 627 W. 21st Street, Merced 2260 N Street, Merced 445 I Street, Los Banos
Please refer to the Court's website for additional information. http://www.merced.courts.ca.gov
http://www.siskiyou.courts.ca.gov/News.asp?NewsID=212
Notice to the Public With apologies to our justice partners and customers, if your experience with calling or emailing the Court is proving frustrating, unfortunately it is not uncommon. The Court's budget allocation has been reduced by half this year, and the Court's resources are severely limited. It is not possible to staff phone lines more than 2 hours daily, or to have staff respond to emails. We encourage you to thoroughly review the materials on this website, which give information about how cases are processed in Siskiyou County. If, after review, you do not find an answer to your question, you may direct your inquiry to: OfficeCEO@siskiyou.courts.ca.gov. If you do, please provide your name, case number and date of next court hearing along with contact email and phone number. Thank you.
I like the discussion of Impacts on Page 10 here…just one more reason to slash AOC funding to zilch…
State of the Judiciary in Sacramento County
Click to access 2013-State-of-the-Judiciary-Sacramento-County.pdf
Maybe when they roam the legislative hallways with their Fact Check and colorful charts in hand, Queen Feckless, J Jahr and Mr Child can explain how in two years the JC/AOC budget grew by over 20 million dollars, while the trial courts lay off valued employees and are forced to close courthouses and significantly reduce public services. Isn't this exactly why we need a fair and comprehensive audit of all their operations?
Union Tribune Judge candidate feels gaveled down
"A candidate challenging a longtime Superior Court judge in the June primary election says she is being pressured to drop out by a legal organization she belongs to and by some judges.
The candidate, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn, said she won't drop her bid to replace San Diego Superior Court Judge Lisa Schall.
"It's my constitutional right to do so," she said. "I'm a qualified candidate. And I think I would make a good judge."
Keehn, 52, is one of five people who have filed to run against judges on the local bench — an unusually high number of challenges to incumbent jurists.
Typically judges are re-elected without opposition, as few lawyers will take on a sitting judge for fear of judicial enmity.
That's a concern that runs through a lengthy email to Keehn from Nicholas J. Fox, a San Diego lawyer and president of the Tom Homann Law Association, a group for gay and lesbian legal professionals.
The Feb. 10 email obtained by U-T Watchdog reveals in frank terms the potential repercussions of challenging a judge.
In it, Fox expresses concern over the ramifications of Keehn's candidacy on the group, and he also suggests she step down from the board while running. He said the group will withdraw an endorsement it gave Keehn back in October.
That endorsement was made when Keehn believed she would run for an open seat on the bench, one with no incumbent running. When no seats came open, Keehn said she decided to challenge Schall.
Fox wrote that two Superior Court judges, David Rubin and Paula Rosenstein, had "expressed a concern coming from their colleagues on the Superior Court regarding your running against a sitting judge."
In an interview, Fox told the U-T that he had mischaracterized what was said by Rubin and Rosenstein, both openly gay jurists. He said neither were speaking on behalf of other judges.
Rubin, a former board member of the legal group, confirmed that.
"I was not in any way advocating on behalf of my colleagues," Rubin said.
Rubin is the former president of the California Judges Association and said he is supporting Schall in the race. He also said his comments were more about the process the board took, endorsing long before all the candidates were known.
Fox went on to write how Keehn's candidacy puts the group in a potentially awkward situation. "Openly challenging a sitting judge can be seen by some as undermining the support and relationship we have worked so hard to build," he wrote to Keehn.
Fox said that the intent of the email was not to get Keehn to withdraw from the race, and nowhere in it does he ask her to drop out. But Keehn said she understood it to be pressure to drop out.
"I think that email, and the care in which it was written, speaks for itself," she said.
Keehn is a veteran federal prosecutor who is also a lesbian, married, and mother to three children. She said in an interview that she has received other calls from the bench — she declined to state from who — urging her to reconsider.
"I'm getting a lot of pressure not to run," she said. Being asked to step down from the board she added was "very disappointing."
Schall, who did not respond to a message seeking comment, has been on the bench since 1985. She was not challenged the last time she was up for re-election, in 2008.
Keehn declined to say why she chose to face Schall. The veteran jurist has had some issues with the state Commission on Judicial Performance. She was publicly admonished in 2008, after she won another term, for being arrested and charged with drunken driving in Escondido in 2007. She eventually pleaded to a lesser charge of reckless driving."
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/feb/21/judge-candidate-feels-gaveled-out/
C'mon! Endorsing Schall is like asking for status quo of ethics problems in the courts and the AOC/JC to keep control of the trial judges and their funds.
Feb 21, 2014 Request that ACJ withdrawal their endorsement of Schall. I sent this before I even knew of this UT article.
Click to access 36c842ff4d.pdf
I don't get it. Why on earth would anyone on this board give a thumbs down to a UT article and a letter regarding the dire need to stop SWOV in the judicial branch? One can't complain about the JC/AOC/CJP using intimidation and SWOV to protect their ethically challenged; and then turn around and do it themselves. To me, that seems disrespectful to AOC employees on this board who have given their all to stop AOC/JC choke-hold cronyism, in hope that a change would bring fairness and democracy in the branch.
It does come across a bit as discouraging democracy and the democratic process and that's regrettable.
Attorneys who are elected to replace judges aren't readily accepted by their colleagues on the bench as as well.
Judges don't like to be challenged as it forces them to campaign for their positions and that opens up another whole can of worms. Most were appointed without campaigning and unless they were previously politicians, have no experience campaigning.
That puts them in the tenuous position of reaching into their own pockets or raising money. When money is raised, it is often from some of the same judges that they share the bench with. So you might not be too happy if you forked over x grand to support a fellow judge and a well orchestrated big money campaign tossed them off the bench anyways.
NewsViews
Reblogged this on News and Views Riverside Superior Court and National Family Law Abuse.
Regarding the Long Beach Courthouse fiasco, this recently appeared in the press: the AOC …"wouldn't concede that they made any mistakes with the Long Beach courthouse which will ultimately cost 2.3 billion over the life of the contract.I'm not sure this was letting anything happen said Curtis Child, the AOC's chief operating officer. We're still quite confident…this is a bargain for the state". Child's comment makes a compelling case for a full audit of the AOC as no reasonable person could ever honestly say that spending over 2 billion on 1 courthouse is appropriate , let alone a "bargain" for the state. By the way isn't this the same Mr Child who was chief AOC lobbyist when HRH-1 tried to block an audit of CCMS and is the same COO now wandering the Capitol hallways trying the block a more full and complete audit of the AOC? You can't make any of this up. Really.
Click to access 8%20long%20beach.pdf
Click to access oga-2013-14-Budget-Update.pdf
Judicial Branch Facility Program
New Long Beach Courthouse. Payments for the annual service fee will be drawn from the Immediate and Critical Needs Account ($34.8 million in 2013–2014, and $54.2 million in 2014–2015).
The budget further requires that the Judicial Council report to the Legislature on specified aspects of the Long Beach project in order to assess the value of the public-private partnership project delivery methodology. The report must assess the cost-effectiveness of the project compared to a minimum of three other projects constructed as part of the court construction program.
In terms of court construction revenue, Long Beach only costs 3,750 traffic convictions per day or over 1,350,000 traffic convictions a year to pay the rent.
Click to access cms1_176933.pdf
Ah, yes, the Long Beach Courthouse. Just a visual reminder of just how grand is the scale of this ostentatious, money-sucking behemoth.
Yes and the same Mr Child that reportedly likes to denigrate the voices for reform of the AOC when he appears in Sacramento. Child was the chief lobbyist for the AOC when HRH-1 fought to stop an audit of CCMS another half billion dollar waste of taxpayer money. CCMS and Long Beach. Exhibits 1 and 2 in the case for a full and complete audit of 455 Golden Gate.
Well OBT, I understand that Curtis Child is wandering the halls of the Capitol in an effort to tell any legislator who will listen that the Alliance of California Judges is comprised of "right-wing zealots". Now I've been accused of being a lot of things, but a "right-wing zealot" ain't been one of them. My political beliefs settle closer to a supporter of Jeffersonian Democracy, at times focusing on Localism. The closer the face of the government is to the people, the more responsive, and responsible, it should be…
Jefferson believed that the core political value of America is "republicanism"; that is, citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy. The principle aspects of Jeffersonian Democracy I disagree with include his belief that the judiciary should always be subservient to the elected branches and the Supreme Court should never have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress; that agriculture should be the focus of our economy and that militias should be staged at the State rather than Federal level.
HRH-1 clearly demonstrated many traits of a Plutocrat, supporting aristocratic elitism, so long as he maintained the the sole power to define and appoint those Plutocrats in power (Judicial Council). King George would have supported "Volksgemeinschaft"; promoting the subordination of individuals and groups to the needs of the AOC and Judicial Council and its leader, HIM.
People resorting to name-calling, like Curtis Child, do little more than demonstrate their own ignorance and limitations. But then again, their has been a long, distinct, and consistent pattern of conduct on the part of King George, Tani the Feckless and their supporters: Demeaning name-calling, and making every effort to marginalize anyone opposing their positions. Some of their favorite lines have included; "Act of War"; "Ants on the trail"; "Right-wing Zealots"; and "Miscreants".
Why not stop the name-calling and focus on the business at hand. The Legislature (and Governor Brown) should move ahead with the audit of the AOC and Judicial Council. The results will likely be quite surprising, to everyone. Truth be told, one of the biggest reasons that Feckless Tani and her minions oppose the audit is that they have no real idea of what the audit will reveal. I genuinely believe that they have no idea how many people are or have worked for the AOC, nor how money has been or is being spent, other than on the global scale. Time will tell…
From my own experience walking those same halls, the office of governmental affairs does resort to character assassination as a reason you should not support x's request for an audit or listen to what Y has to say.
With a bunch of progressives in office it only makes sense to try and paint the ACJ and others that support an audit as 'right wing zealots' in a hail-mary attempt to cover for their own misdeeds.
These attacks are also coordinated by the speak with one voice crowd so that the're all saying the same thing about the same people because they know repetition is the mother of success. It only makes sense to get three or more people across the judicial spectrum to label a group or individual and tell the same legislative aide or legislator the same story. It's been very effective thus far….
I can't count the amount of times I was required to sit in a meeting and BE one of the speak with one voice crowd.
When 455 gg had its power issue where a cable in the west tower arc'd and knocked out power for days, the AOC had people across their whole organization questioning the competency of DGS because one of the AOC's goals is to take over the entire "ronald george state office complex" When this incident happened, people across the whole AOC and their various divisions were required to sit in DGS briefings with instructions to question the competency of DGS maintenance and management in that building.
The maintenance and management were fine. But the goal, the eye on the prize was to lay out DGS as incompetent and as a reason the legislature should give the building to the judicial council.
My understanding of Mr. Child's conduct while roaming the hallways of the State Capitol is that he will shove his business card at anyone who will take it, while making sure the person knows his title. Apparently, his "title" is very important to him, and believes that it carries a presumption of immediate credibility that is not to be questioned. When asked hard questions or asked to address critical issues in branch administration, he responds by repeating the branch mantra that, except for needing "more money", things are "great" in the branch. He dismisses those within the branch, such as the members of the ACJ, with various forms of character assassination or by calling them "disgruntled", while claiming that although judges might know how to run their courtrooms, they are unqualified, ignorant and uninformed when it comes to branch administration. More than once I have heard Mr. Childs described as a schoolyard bully who can't be trusted. He got that reputation the old-fashioned way: he earned it.
Yep. And that's why it is extremely important not to give them any justification to call you names. Remember how they portrayed Calderon as a he man, woman-hater for saying Tani was pretty…and then used that as a reason to not support the Trial Courts Bill of Rights? In utter shock at the 6 thumbs down for trying to stop that from happening again.
Thinking of the unnamed, protected-by-Miller person who almost succeeded at removing the ability of the local trial courts to select their own presiding judge through a little tweak in legislation …
Just woke up from a nice nap. Couldn't sleep too well last night, so I picked up the 91-page Judicial Branch Technology Governance, Strategy, and Funding Proposal report. Made it to about page 11 before drifting off to a heavenly sleep.
A great laugh within that report is the focus quote for the launch of their "new approach" to technology…a quote from Rahm Emanuel: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before." Typical of the JC, the quote is take out of context and has no correlation to the "technology initiatives" and "technology tactical plans" that they want to launch between 2014 and 2016.
In 2008, Mr. Emanuel said the following during a conference hosted by the Wall Street Journal: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before. I think America as a whole in 1973 and 1974, and not just my view but obviously the administration's, missed the opportunity to deal with the energy crisis that was before us. For a long time our entire energy policy came down to cheap oil. This is an opportunity, what used to be long-term problems, be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area, things that we have postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity, for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before. The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution."
By the way, that 91-page report is a wonderful example of just why a top-to-bottom audit should be conducted. The report says nothing of substance, but I'm sure it costs lots of money to create the babel-laden tomb, replete with pretty charts so that Tani could follow along…
It says absolutely nothing substantive and it lets us all know that nothing has really changed at the judicial council or the AOC. All they've done is window dressing. They issued new titles, printed new business cards and created new advisory committees that report to the same incompetent fools that endorsed CCMS and proclaimed it complete by reclassifying a few years of development into rollout costs.
The whole technology process starts and ends with the incompetent fools. In the center of that, they permit competent people to 'advise' but it is the same incompetent fools that ultimately will make the decisions and determine the direction of technology projects.
It's nothing short of a roadmap to CCMS v5.
The comments above attributed to Mr Child are very offensive. I have heard these rumors before about those running 455 Golden Gate trying to isolate ACJ and any reform minded Judges as "Tea party" supporters or " right wingers". The reality is very different. This is not a partisan battle. This fight is over democratizing our branch of government and ending a dictatorship that no one approved of, including the voters, legislators, The Governor or Judges of this state. Ronald George highjacked the 1998 Trial court funding bill for his own benefit and power and we all know the results, including huge wastes of taxpayer dollars, economic wreckage to the trial courts and our employees, closed courthouses and reduced public service all while the unelected Judicial Council and AOC grew and grabbed for more power at every turn. Despite the wasting of half a billion on CCMS , for which no was was ever held accountable, the AOC continues to blunder on wasting billions on new courthouses in Long Beach and San Diego. I respectfully ask legislators to reject Mr Child's self serving attempts to sleaze and undermine significant and meaningful efforts at reform, including an audit of AOC operations, understanding that he and our failed Chief Justice are only desperately seeking one thing, to maintain their power.
Telling the truth should not be deemed an act of rebellion, to be punished with character assassination and the virtual death of one's career. But the sad truth, Lando, is that in the California judicial branch it is. Bad enough in any branch of government or public administration. But truly appalling when it involves the branch of government and public administration that is supposed to set an example when it comes to telling the truth, but instead is doing this to judges, and others, simply for telling the truth.
What is even more egregious and reprehensible is that no one in any position of authority who could do something about this, will.
Seriously – should it really be this hard, and take this long (years at this point) for there to be a comprehensive audit of 455 Golden Gate Avenue, especially given the continuous accumulation of evidence of waste, fraud, embezzlement, retaliation, lying, unethical conduct, mismanagement, incompetence, misappropriation of funds, and other assorted bad behavior from branch "leadership"?
Your awesome Wendy. I long ago gave up any personal ambitions to advance to the Court of Appeal as I felt it was much more important to speak the truth about Ronald George and now Queen Feckless and the wreckage they have created.They can say all they want and AOC toadies like Child can accuse me of being some right wing zealot but the people I represent and work for know none of that is true. Ron George destroyed a principle America was built on, the advancement of people based on merit and hard work. He replaced that system with people blindly loyal to him along with punishing those that stood up to him. Pretty dysfunctional and sad really. As Woodhull says , Child just represents the mean spirited nature of Ron George's legacy and the fact that Queen Feckless promoted him speaks volumes about her and the lack of any real change or new transparency at the crystal palace located at 455 Golden Gate.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/24/65615.htm&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTNzczMjM1OTE4MTY3MTQ3MDYxNTIaNzgxNzg2OWVkY2EyMzYzNDpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNE3HxdHfTgh1QZmT5ctixOq7cZFPg
Click to access News%20Release-San%20Bernardino%20Superior%20Court-Valley%20Reorganization.pdf
MaxRebo5
Nice piece by Courhouse News. I like those guys.
As for the AOC's "Fact Check" web page for the audits, I found it to be biased. Notice they cut off the audits listed so the CCMS legislative audit, which found millions wasted on CCMS and huge managment errors by the AOC, was conveniently left off the list. The money spent on that "fact check" section is essentually taxpayer money being spent on public relations for the AOC's agenda to push back on the ACJ and JCW critics
That money for an AOC staffer to be producing fact checks should be redirected to the trial courts to do real case related work. Stop wasting money on PR work and on lobbiests at the OGA and just spend it on staff at the local level. Maybe then the press will get to see what is going on in cases within 24 hours as is their right and duty as free press. That's doing the work of the people. Bring on the next audit, and the next one till the Chief gets it. She has money but it spending it on the wrong things (like incomplete "Fact Checks" by AOC staffers).
My advice to Courthouse news is to file a Federal Case that your freedom of the press under the first amendment of the US Constitution is being denied by the State of California through delays by some CA Courts. Maybe a Federal Court order will get their attention.
Bill Girdner rocks, as usual. He sure can cut through the tripe. Thanks for posting, MaxRebo5!
Subscribe to JCW via email
Subscribe to JCW and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Tony on AB 1389 Sobriety Checkpoints (…
Maxrebo5 on Another round of construction…
Gwendolyn Hall on Five Yards is sufficient …
Delilah on Another round of construction…
Michelle on The number of county courts op…
Wendy Dsrling on The number of county courts op…
SiteAdmin on The number of county courts op…
amcri on The number of county courts op…
widgeen@aol.com on The number of county courts op…
Patricia Dowling on The number of county courts op…
sharonkramer on Give more money to the Judicia…
MaxRebo5 on Give more money to the Judicia…
sharon kramer on Give more money to the Judicia…
RT @GuilloMena: You see the soldiers in this picture? They are National Guardsmen from Puerto Rico, citizens, coming to Washington, DC to d… 20 hours ago
@IvankaTrump Repeat after me: "My daddy killed more Americans than any president in U.S. history!" 1 day ago
@MollyJongFast Whoa not so fast. NRA is not bankrupt. They're filing bankruptcy AND RE-INCORPORATING IN TEXAS to li… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 1 day ago
@gtconway3d He's got a Boeing Business Jet that can reach all corners of the world... 2 days ago
RT @TheDweck: Prob just a coincidence that everyone at the Trump riot had people in their personal lives who couldn't wait to turn them in 2 days ago
RT @NickKnudsenUS: To be clear: It's not divisive to hold coup plotters accountable. It's divisive to plot & attempt a coup. It's not t… 2 days ago
@RepAndyBiggsAZ Not at all. A person who participates in an insurrection does not deserve to hold any public office… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 days ago
@RepAndyBiggsAZ Irresponsible statements like this as well as falsely irresponsible statements like "stop the steal… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 days ago
@RexChapman Only when it was obvious it would not succeed he asked them to stand down and even that was half-hearted. 3 days ago
@gopleader should be telling Trump that he will support impeachment if TRUMP does not do this himself. "Stop the st… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 days ago
Follow @councilwatcher
JCW's Archives
JCW's Archives Select Month November 2020 (1) August 2020 (1) June 2020 (1) May 2020 (1) March 2020 (1) September 2019 (1) July 2017 (1) April 2017 (2) January 2017 (1) October 2016 (5) September 2016 (2) August 2016 (2) July 2016 (3) June 2016 (4) May 2016 (3) April 2016 (2) February 2016 (5) January 2016 (1) December 2015 (3) November 2015 (3) October 2015 (6) September 2015 (3) August 2015 (1) July 2015 (9) June 2015 (2) May 2015 (3) April 2015 (3) March 2015 (10) February 2015 (7) January 2015 (7) December 2014 (2) November 2014 (6) October 2014 (6) September 2014 (7) August 2014 (4) July 2014 (4) June 2014 (3) May 2014 (1) April 2014 (6) March 2014 (7) February 2014 (4) January 2014 (4) December 2013 (5) November 2013 (9) October 2013 (6) September 2013 (3) August 2013 (12) July 2013 (12) June 2013 (10) May 2013 (7) April 2013 (8) March 2013 (11) February 2013 (7) January 2013 (14) December 2012 (23) November 2012 (12) October 2012 (14) September 2012 (13) August 2012 (27) July 2012 (31) June 2012 (17) May 2012 (17) April 2012 (11) March 2012 (12) February 2012 (16) January 2012 (16) December 2011 (11) November 2011 (13) October 2011 (13) September 2011 (18) August 2011 (28) July 2011 (35) June 2011 (35) May 2011 (21) April 2011 (16) March 2011 (22) February 2011 (34) January 2011 (17) December 2010 (15) November 2010 (13) October 2010 (3)
Ca. Federation of Interpreters
Hire a court reporter
Los Angeles County Court Reporter Association Directory
Justice Partner Links
AngiEmedia.com
AOC Watcher
Cal State University Sacramento Court Watch project
California Court Reporters Association
California Official Court Reporters Association
California Protective Parents Association
Center for Judical Excellence
Common Cause of California
Dice Tech Talk: Tech Nation Discussion Board – The CCMS Boondoggle
Family Court Reform
Judicial Council Watcher on Facebook
Save LA Courts
The Leslie Brodie Report
ABC – 10 News San Diego
ABC News – KGO
California Watch
Rachel Maddow – News that educates
Put your money where your cause is
Adopt US Kids
Alliance of California Judges


text:
Rare Cells Regulate Immune Responses; May Offer Novel Treatment for Autoimmune Diseases
The findings, which were demonstrated in mice, highlight the unique properties of a subset of B cells that normally controls immune responses and limits autoimmunity, in which an organism mistakenly attacks its own healthy tissue.
Reproducing a rare type of B cell in the laboratory and infusing it back into the body may provide an effective treatment for severe autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis, according to researchers at Duke University Medical Center.
B cells are the component of the immune system that creates antibodies, which fight pathogens like bacteria and viruses. However, a small subset of B cells, called regulatory B cells, works to suppress immune responses. These B cells are characterized by a cell-signaling protein called interleukin-10 (IL-10), giving these regulatory B cells the name B10 cells.
While B10 cells are small in number, they are important for controlling inflammation and autoimmunity. B10 cells can also limit normal immune responses during infections, reducing inadvertent damage to healthy body tissue.
"Regulatory B cells are a fairly new finding that we're just beginning to understand," said Thomas F. Tedder, PhD (pictured), professor of immunology at Duke and study author. "B10 cells are important because they make sure an immune response doesn't get carried away, resulting in autoimmunity or pathology. This study shows for the first time that there is a highly controlled process that determines when and where these cells produce IL-10."
Tedder and his colleagues studied the process of IL-10 production in the B10 cells of mice. Creating IL-10 requires physical interactions between B10 cells and T cells, which play a role in turning on the immune system.
The researchers found that B10 cells only respond to very specific antigens. Recognizing these antigens drives the function of B10 cells, causing them to turn off certain T cells when they bind the same antigen to prevent them from harming healthy tissue.
With this understanding of B10 cells, researchers set out to learn whether B10 cells could be harnessed as a cellular therapy, given their ability to regulate immune responses and autoimmunity.
"Since B10 cells are extremely rare, it was important that we find a feasible solution to reproduce these cells outside the body to make them available," Tedder said.
The researchers learned that the B10 cells could be isolated from the body and would maintain their ability to regulate immune responses. Moreover, they could be reproduced in large numbers.
"Normal B cells usually die quickly when cultured, but we have learned how to expand their numbers by about 25,000-fold. However, the rare B10 cells in the cultures expand their numbers by 4-million-fold, which is remarkable. Now, we can take the B10 cells from one mouse and increase them in culture over 9 days to where we can effectively treat 8,000 mice with autoimmune disease," said Tedder.
When a small amount of B10 cells were introduced into mice with multiple sclerosis-like autoimmune disease, their symptoms were significantly reduced, essentially turning off the disease.
"B10 cells will only shut off what they are programmed to shut off. If you have rheumatoid arthritis, you would want cells that would only go after your rheumatoid arthritis," continued Tedder. "This research shows that we may have the potential to unharness regulatory cells, make millions of copies, and introduce them back into someone with autoimmune disease to shut down the disease. This may also treat transplanted organ rejection."
Additional research is needed to learn how to expand human B10 cells and determine how B10 cells behave in humans, building on the study's insights into the mechanisms behind their function and autoimmunity.
"Autoimmune diseases are very complicated, so creating a single therapy that allows us to go after multiple disease targets without causing immunosuppression has proven to be difficult." Tedder said. "Here, we're hoping to take what Mother Nature has already created, improve on it by expanding the cells outside of the body, and then put them back in to let Mother Nature go back to work."
Illustration: Duke University Medical Center.
Duke University Medical Center News Release (10/14/12)
Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (10/15/12)
Abstract (Nature; (10/14/12))

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Saudi, UAE back talks to heal rift between Yemenis in Aden
Makkah - Separatist leader says ready for dialogue, ceasefire; no fresh clashes reported in Aden.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE called on conflicting Yemeni parties in Aden to prioritise dialogue in the interests of Yemeni people.
His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, on Monday, met the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, at Al Mina Palace in the holy city of Makkah.
In a statement, the Crown Prince expressed his appreciation for the wisdom shown by the Saudi leadership in inviting Yemeni parties in Aden to hold talks.
This call, the Crown Prince said, embodies the common concern for Yemen's stability, and represents an important framework to defuse tensions, and achieve solidarity among the people of Yemen.
Dialogue is the only way to resolve differences between Yemenis, Sheikh Mohamed stressed, and called on Yemeni parties to seize this opportunity, and carry out talks to reach a consensus that is in the best interest of Yemen and its people.
Meanwhile, the head of Yemen's separatist movement said he was ready to take part in Saudi-brokered peace talks.
The chief of the separatist Southern Transitional Council, Aidarus Al Zubaidi, said he was committed to a ceasefire in Aden.
The rebel leader alleged last week's violence had been provoked by Hadi's forces, who planned to assassinate the movement's leaders and then "provoke our people and liquidate our presence".
Al Zubaidi, however, voiced support for a ceasefire called by the coalition on Saturday, saying separatists were ready "to work responsibly with Saudi Arabia in managing this crisis".
The Yemeni government and separatists both voiced backing Riyadh's call for dialogue and a truce, and there have been no reports of clashes on Monday.
President Abd Rabbu Hadi held talks with the Saudi King and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Sunday to discuss the situation, the state-run SPA news agency reported.
Separatist commanders accused Al Islah Islamist party of killing one of its commanders and "infiltrating" the Hadi government, which is politically and financially supported by Saudi Arabia. Since the fighting flared on Thursday, around 40 people have been killed and 260 others wounded, including civilians, according to the United Nations.
Pro-Hadi forces and separatists have theoretically been allies since 2015, fighting the Houthis. But many in southern Yemen seek renewed independence for the region, which was a separate state until 1990.
FAB's ESG agenda leads regional transformations
Supplements1 hour ago
UAE: Gold steady at 3-month high; 24K trades at Dh221 per gram
Prices for the precious metal surged as the bond market selloff appears to be over for now
Dubai: Man jailed for seriously injuring expat in stabbing incident
The victim had just bought an alcoholic beverage from the accused before being attacked.
Crime1 hour ago
Finally, a healthcare platform that both doctors and patients love
BeeHealthy - on a mission to make healthcare smarter
Dubai: Mortgage transactions reach all-time high of Dh127 billion in 2021
This exceeds the previous record, set in in 2017, by 26 per cent
Dubai jobs: Leading bank to hold walk-in interviews; salary up to Dh5,000
Selected candidates will also be offered benefits and other incentives in addition to their wages
Jobs2 hours ago
Trust your customers always
KT Network2 hours ago
Putin will pay 'dear price' if he invades Ukraine, says Biden
The US president suggested he was not fully confident that Russian officials are fully informed about their leader's thinking
Europe2 hours ago


For almost 20 years, Mexico has been at the forefront of Latin-American arbitration practice. It has been widely recognized both in terms of the quality and sophistication of its practitioners, its modern legal framework (since 1993 based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration) and for its arbitration friendly judiciary.
According to statistics published every year by the International Chamber of Commerce, Mexico (alongside Brazil) is one of the most frequent Latin-American nationalities present in ICC arbitration proceedings. Just in 2010, there were a total of 62 Mexican parties (business entities or individuals), in a total of 23 arbitrations, Mexico City was the place of arbitration in 13 cases and a total of 24 Mexican arbitrators were either confirmed or appointed by the ICC Court. The statistics for 2011 are equally surprising.
More surprising however, is that over the last four years, more than 14 ICC arbitrations involving Mexican parties, involved a Mexican state entity either as Claimant or as Respondent. It is well known that the state owned oil & gas company PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) and power giant CFE (Comisión Federal de Electricidad) are Mexico's most recurrent users of arbitration, ICC arbitration in particular.
While the CFE and PEMEX are not the only state entities to include arbitration provisions in their contracts with private parties, the involvement of other state entities in arbitral proceedings has been less significant than that of the CFE and PEMEX. The reason behind this is that their "organic laws" were the only laws that provided for the possibility of arbitrating their disputes with private parties. This will, however, change in the short term in light of recent reforms to the Mexican Public Works Law and Public Procurement Law as well as the January 2012 enactment of the Public-Private Partnerships Law. The reforms and the new law now expressly open arbitration to all public works contracts and to all long term service contracts with the federal government.
The move confirms Mexico's clear policy in favor of arbitration and promises to increase its use for resolving disputes arising out of public contracts. There is no doubt it will. The question is whether the Mexican government and its state owned entities will be prepared, well trained and organized to deal with arbitration proceedings under their respective contracts.
Both the CFE and PEMEX have their own legal departments, composed of lawyers specializing in public procurement, energy, oil & gas, construction and administrative law, all of which have gained experience in arbitration practice, in light of their frequent involvement in such proceedings. In reality, almost all of the arbitrations are handled solely by their staff attorneys, rarely employing outside counsel to assist them. However, due to the particularities of Mexican politics, it is not uncommon to see a particular government office or state entity change heads in brief periods of time (sometimes in less than a year, sometimes every presidential term), thereby affecting the composition of the legal teams, their continuity and strategy.
While the CFE has been able to maintain the permanence of its legal department for the past ten years or so and has thus assured continuity in its representation and defense, each division of PEMEX (at least three) has its own separate legal department that independently deals with the arbitrations filed by the division or against it. These legal departments have high turnover rates as team leaders change more often than not and there is no uniform approach and strategy in their arbitrations. Moreover, the interaction between the legal departments is scarce, leading to deficient coordination and affecting the appropriate representation of the state entity.
The range of activities in which CFE & PEMEX are involved and the overwhelmingly complex disputes that arise out of their contracts with private parties, require a high level of specialization from state attorneys. Moreover, the amount of arbitrations filed in a year, the reforms and laws expressly opening the road for arbitration of state contracts, the existence of several legal departments working independently from one another and the fact that such work generally overlaps because of the similarities among the factual and legal scenarios present in state contract disputes, begs the question of whether Mexico should consider establishing a specific, self-contained unit for the representation of its government and state owned entities.
In the same way as Argentina has its Procuración del Tesoro de la Nación, which is mostly known for its highly specialized group of lawyers representing the government and its state owned entities in arbitrations filed before ICSID and the ICC Court, Mexican policy makers and legislators should consider the benefits of creating a Mexican Procuración, especially now in the wake of the upcoming presidential and legislative elections.
The achievements of Argentina's Procuración del Tesoro de la Nación can be measured by the consolidation of a team of lawyers vastly specialized in handling complex disputes involving issues of public and private international law, construction law, energy law and that are dedicated to serving their country by defending it in high-profile cases. The coordination among Argentina's lawyers and their sophistication in tackling the most complex legal issues is impressive.
Although Mexico has had its share of investment disputes and has been remarkably represented by a group of lawyers within the Ministry of Economy, its docket is mostly composed of a significant number of international arbitrations that involve its most important state owned entities. The amounts in dispute in these cases frequently exceed seven and, sometimes, even eight figures. While the need for a self-contained unit for the representation of the Mexican government and its state owned entities such as Argentina's Procuración may not seem obvious, considering the unquestionable benefits of coordination and specialization amongst legal staff and the efficiency that such coordination promotes, a harmonized team for the defense of the Mexican government would be more efficient, less costly and would potentially increase its success rate.
With 2012 being an election year in Mexico, some of the candidates running for the presidential office have mentioned their intentions to create a Ministry of Justice. Whether a unit for the representation of the Mexican government and state entities is clinged to a future Ministry of Justice or whether it is incorporated within an existing structure, is something to be carefully considered and evaluated. What is certain is that in order to avoid the idiosyncrasies of Mexican politics and to assure its independence from political maneuvers, internal liability matters and budgetary restraints, a specific, self-contained unit for the representation of Mexico and its state entities would ideally have financial independence and autonomy from the central government in its decision making process. Such independence and autonomy would assure the continuity of the strategies employed in Mexico's defense, would guarantee the specialization and permanence of its members and would undoubtedly lead to significant savings.
The representation and defense of Mexico and its state owned entities is a question of public interest. Considering Mexico's clear policy in favor of arbitration, the number of arbitrations filed and the stakes involved (the Mexican people's assets and property), isn't time we start contemplating the advantages of a Mexican Procuración? A prima facie evaluation of the benefits illustrates its promise; the question is whether government will foster the idea.
Very interesting, Víctor. As you say, we already have in Mexico an agency within the Ministry of Economy that defends the country against the investor – State claims. However, Pemex and CFE are public corporations with their own corporate personality who participate in private arbitrations under the ICC rules. They act just like private parties in those cases, not like public and sovereign entities like in the investor – State cases. That is why it is quite questionable if there should exist a Procuracy, for example within the Juridic Counsel of the Federal Executiv or in the General Procecuracy of the Republic.
Having been for already a good number of years a "guest" member of the legal team at the Procuración del Tesoro of Argentina as of counsel to them, I welcome Victor's very insightful lines, and endorse his words of praise to the fine work of those exceptional young lawyers!
As a question in continuation of Mr. Pietrini's comment: Would representation of PEMEX and CFE by an office of Procuración tip the scales in a hypothetical argument that the Mexican state should be joined as a party in a seemingly private dispute between one of those companies and a private party? I realize that a party has the right to choose its counsel and legal arguments should not be influenced as a result of this choice. However, I could imagine it being used to argue that since a state legal office provides representation, then the state itself should be implicated.
Public companies like PEMEX and CFE in fact may choose between their own legal departments and private lawfirms to be defended in legal disputes, including arbitration. Moreover, many civil servants involved on technical functions (like the legal ones) are subject to exams in order to enter and keep their posts; however, in the practice things might be still different due to the strenght of political influence and the legal teams may change often. What Víctor suggest is to have a permanent State organ not subject to political influence, with lawyers who are not affected by political influence either (i.e. who are not appointed or dismissed freely by their superiors, the President or some other ministries of States, is what I understand) in order for them to be easily coordinated with the public companies involved and not to change their legal strategies during the arbitral proceedings. I think that creating an organ autonomous from the Executive branch of power for the sole purpose to defend the State companies against private arbitration claims is not very feasible since it means to give them to much autonomy and very few functions (the dream of most public organs in Mexico!). It is more realistic to have a desconcentrate organ or agency like the Federal Telecommunications Commission or the Federal Competition Commission, which 5 commissionates endure some years in their post and may be ratified for others more. And trying to answer to Mr. Riccio's question, the counsels are very creative. The State is like "the parent" company of descentralized organisms like PEMEX or CFE. Furthermore, the State is their only member, since they have nor partners neither shares. Since PEMEX and CFE are public monopolies with their own corporate personality and assets, I think that the privity principle of arbitration should prevail and the State should not be considered as a party, even though that the fact of representing their companies through a Procuración or Ministry of Justice opens the posibility to challenge my opinion by raising some multiparty arbitration precedents.