Read ACJ’s Statement to the Judicial Council

I’m posting a copy of a statement that the Alliance of California Judges planned on reading at today’s Judicial Council meeting.

Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Council:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Judge David Lampe from Kern County. I am a founding director of the Alliance of California Judges. The Alliance was formed on
September 11, 2009, in response to the unprecedented financial crisis now facing our judicial branch. The Alliance now has nearly 200 member judges from 30 counties.

Your meeting today will revisit the issue of court closures. In this atmosphere, continued closures while funds are taken away from operations will generate great criticism. This is apparent from
the outcry which has ensued upon disclosure of raises given to highly paid AOC staff. It was apparent when five days before a legislative hearing on accountability in October 2009, this Council diverted
$68.0 million from the Trial Court Trust Fund earmarked for trial court operations in favor of the expensive and questioned CCMS computer system.

We have this atmosphere of protest because there is a problem with governance. This Council does not govern the trial courts– a fact appropriately acknowledged by the Administrative Director in his
testimony in October before that legislative committee. The trial courts are by law decentralized and are appropriately managed by the trial judges who are responsible to the people of their counties who have elected them. Yet there is presently no effective structure to ensure that the trial courts are being fully heard on the budget questions that so vitally affect the public.

Ultimately, the Alliance of California Judges stands for accountability. We urge this Council to work with the Alliance of California Judges to reduce the decibel level of criticism. We urge you not to
fight ghosts of old battles of unification and state funding which are now history. We urge the following:

We ask that this Council, with the guidance of the Legislature, reaffirm the rights of the local trial courts by a Trial Court Bill of Rights that the Legislature asked for in 1997, and which has never
been acted upon by the Judicial Council.

We also ask that this Council, with direction from the Legislature, establish a separate Trial Court Advisory Group, consisting of trial judges elected by judges from the 58 county trial courts, with
provisions to balance the interests of smaller and larger courts, which could advise the Council, provide oversight as to the AOC, and report upon the judicial budget and judicial affairs.

Finally, the Alliance believes that the Judicial Council should encourage the Legislature to place the employees of the AOC under the existing protections of the whistle blower statutes.

As to the issue of the day, we urge you to rescind court closures. At the same time, we ask that you reconsider the TCTF allocation you made in October 2009 and distribute all reasonably prudent,
available, and lawful funds to the trial courts. We know that some of our counties may be able to open, and some, like Kern and Los Angeles, will likely have to continue with some form of closure or furlough.
Although it may be confusing, having some courts open will at least allow many constituents throughout the state to receive services, and it will give the local courts who have to close or furlough, the
opportunity to choose methods that allow them the most flexibility.

Finally, we know the value of speaking with one voice. To speak with one voice, that voice must first be found. Work with us to give the people a voice through democratic participation by trial judges
the people have elected. In this way, in the future, we can speak together, achieve consensus, and continue to work together to make the California judicial system the best it can be. Let the people have a voice.

Thank you.

38 responses to “Read ACJ’s Statement to the Judicial Council

  1. Judicial Observer

    Judge Lampe and the ACJ have cogently spelled out the root problem creating all the angst on this blog. Governance and the lack of an ability to be heard. That problem was only underscored today when the Chief Justice acting as Chairperson of the Judicial Council cut off Judge Lampe when he tried to cover this very area in his presentation. (And I am told he did so by addressing him as Mr. Lampe and not affording him the dignity of his elected office.)

    They can deny that they don’t control the trial courts all they want, but it doesn’t make it so. They control the budget decisions and such controls the courts as effectively as if they were sitting on each courts Executive Committee. They make decisions to lobby the legislature for statutes impacting each and every court, without any input from the judges they are affecting.

    The judges elected directly by the public to run the trial court are not allowed to have meaningful input into the core decisions affecting the ability of the courts to serve the public. The only input is from the selected hand picked few appointed by the Chief Justice to the Judicial Council or to the so called “advisory” committees. And as we have heard on this blog, those committees are really puppets of the AOC leadership.

    Although they give lip service to not having the authority to govern the courts, everything they do by way of rule passage and legislation suggests the opposite. Until the governed have the right to have meaningful elected representation on the Judicial Council, the revolution will continue. And until the AOC employees are given protection, their leadership will continue to hide the try costs of that bureaucracy to the detriment of the Judicial Branch.

    Thank you Judge Lampe and the ACJ for giving judges and trial court employees a voice and pointing the way to a solution. Governance change and employee protection is vital to save this branch from becoming a second rate judiciary.

  2. versal-versal

    Thanks Observer for those insights. I too listened to the JC meeting and was disturbed by the Chief’s cutting off and restricting Judge Lampe after he started talking about branch governance. I guess restricting public comments to three minutes wasn’t good enough.Observer you have summarized it well,”Until the governed have the right to have meaningful elected representation on the Judicial Council, the revolution will continue”.

  3. Obi-Wan Kenobi

    Two observations:

    “We ask that this Council, with the guidance of the Legislature, reaffirm the rights of the local trial courts by a Trial Court Bill of Rights that the Legislature asked for in 1997, and which has never been acted upon by the Judicial Council.”

    The JC came out and pointed towards rules of the court adequately addressing this.

    The second observation came from “We urge this Council to work with the Alliance of California Judges to reduce the decibel level of criticism. ”

    Call me old fashioned but in politics its always the squeaky wheels that get the oil. I would say that the pressure on legislators has not grown enough from my many discussions with several legislative aides.

    I ask “Of course you’ve heard from the Alliance of California Judges and I get Alliance who?”

    While some key aides have heard of the ACJ and their worthy mission others don’t even know who the ACJ is or why they were created. While certain legislators know about the shennagins of the AOC, many I’ve talked to have never heard the issues. Talking and educating legislative aides IE turning up the volume of dissent by educating all legislative aides to know the score is of critical importance in accomplishing your goals.

    To take them on you must take them out. They hold influence as a body of government holding both power and purse strings. They believe they still control the message while being cognizantly aware that they may be loosing ground. They still believe themselves to be above the law in many ways.

    Until you take on the double standards, until you take on and question the ethical and legal issues, unless you can make a case the common person can relate to you have an uphill struggle.

    Change will not occur in the Judicial Council Chambers nor at the hands of the AOC.

    Change will only occur with our elected representatives and only when they’re convinced that there’s a problem and a loud chorus of dissent and that loud chorus of dissent must include Chief Justice George as the ringleader in the Circus we know as the AOC.

    Peter Calvert in A Study of Revolution, Oxford University Press, 1970, starts with a definition of political revolution as ‘a complete overthrow of the established government of a country or state by those who were previously subject to it; a forcible substitution of a new ruler or form of government’. The emphasis here is on revolution as historical events but he accepts there are other circumstances which can be called revolution namely: 1) a process in which the political direction of a state becomes increasingly discredited in the eyes of either the population as a whole or certain key sections of it. Such a process may culminate in the revolutionary event … or in the change of government by more peaceful means; 2) a more-or-less coherent programme of change in either the political or the social institutions of a state, or both, induced by the political leadership after a revolutionary event, the transition of power, has occurred.

    We respectfully submit that the current body politic that runs the Judicial branch has and continues to discredit themselves and all we need to do is hammer away at these issues already exposed as being illigitimate and not in the best interests of the governed.

  4. Nathaniel Woodhull

    I sat there in amazement, listening to the pap being dispensed at the meeting yesterday. I too, like versal-versal was taken aback by the Chief cutting off Judge Lampe’s presentation and his cutting off the prior speaker claiming he was giving bad information. Obi-Wan and Judicial Observer make excellent points as well.
    Our founders for the most part believed in representative democracy, not direct democracy. Problem is, there is no representation when it comes to the Judicial Council and the Judicial Branch. No one appointed Ronald George King, although I’m sure he might disagree with that assessment.
    Press on, keep fighting the good fight Alliance!

  5. Six days before yesterday’s Judicial Council meeting (the rules require but 4) the Alliance of California Judges made a request to address the Council, and sent its verbatim proposed statement to AOC Sr. Counsel Nancy Spero. The rules require a response from the AOC two days prior to the meeting.

    Roughly an hour before their deadline (3:30 Tuesday) , Ms. Spero emailed me that Justice Huffman’s E and P committee had agreed to our request. (That was undoubtedly an interesting meeting). She indicated that we would be constrained to three minutes, and that all speakers should remain on topic.

    I immediately emailed her and told her that we would indeed honor the request to pare down our request to three minutes. I also asked this:
    “Did the committee vote to IN ANY RESPECT require us to edit our submitted statement other than to make sure it comports with the three minute request? We of course believe that our statement as submitted is directly relevant to the agenda item in question.” I also asked that the written statement be given to all Council members.

    The next morning (Wednesday) I traveled to San Francisco where I met with Judge Lampe and others. That day, I received an email from Mr. Kenneth Kann, the Director of the Executive Office Program’s Division, and Ms. Spero’s supervisor, I believe. He attached my email to Ms. Spero, and informed me that the E and P committee had granted the request to have the written statement distributed. That’s all he said. No mention of any “off-topic” concerns. No other communications were thereafter sent to us by the AOC or Council.

    Just before the start of the meeting, I actually met Ms. Spero briefly, and no mention was made that our statement was viewed as off-topic by anyone.

    Surprisingly, in the midst of Judge Lampe’s statement to the Council, he was interupted by the Chief Justice who stated “With all due respect, I think you were well informed that that’s not an agenda item….you are free to communicate otherwise your views on other issues, but your three minutes today are only on the subject of the agenda item.”

    Judge Lampe explained that the current governance structure has not allowed consensus within the branch, causing protests, but that he respected the Chief’s wishes, and then moved away from the topic that had so disturbed the head of the Council.

    Of course, this is the core of the problem. The continued stifling of dissent by those who purport to seek input from judge guarantees continued strife. That was the point of the statement that the head of the Council would not allow to be spoken in public . One cannot discuss closures without discussing budget. One cannot discuss budget without discussing the insular and secretive manner in which disastrous decisions regarding the budget have been made.

    Now, the Chief certainly has the prerogative to cut off anyone he wants, no matter how untoward it appears. However, to imply that somehow Judge Lampe or the ACJ was informed by ANYONE that any portion of the statement was off topic is incorrect. This Chief was perhaps unaware of the email correspondence I have referred to herein, but it is important that it be known that the ACJ followed every rule, and every directive, in addressing the Council. All of these emails are available to anyone who would like to see them.

    It was rather astounding, as pointed out by another observer, that various Council members were encouraged to rebut the portion of Judge Lampes statement that he had been precluded from delivering. This all appeared rather scripted and clumsy, at least to my eyes, but pointed out the glaring and immediate need for change. It is obvious that those in control have absolutely no intention to hear dissent, much less take it to heart.

    Chuck Horan

    • It also appears to be a violation of the Brown Open Meeting Act, but then the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council have already demonstrated that they don’t much care for abiding by those rules either.

  6. Obi-Wan Kenobi

    I have a question for judges in general and I ask this question in all sincerity because it might be the crux of the issue in bringing your message forward and swaying parties that need to be swayed so I will utilize a hypothetical situation.

    Let’s say, for example that you discovered an impropriety that you could tie directly to a member of the AOC leadership.

    Let’s say, for example, that one of these parties was hiring their wife under their maiden name as a consultant and paying that wife a half million dollars a year.

    Is it an ethical violation or against some tenant of being a judge to say “Person x hired his wife under her maiden name and is paying her a half million dollars a year as a consultant and this is the reason you need to investigate” to a legislative aide or say, a legislator?

    Would the ACJ member judges be prohibited from making such statements?

    Do you need someone to carry this ball for you that is neither an attorney nor a judge, such as a legislative lobbyist?

    I’m trying to understand how the AOC blows through controversial legislation or actions and in doing so it seems to me that the same tecniques could be utilized to blow through common sense legislation or actions.

    I ask this because I am not an attorney, I am not a judge and frankly, I’m not involved in any aspect of the laws and I made a curious observation with Judge Horan’s piece about the unlicensed contractors. Specifically about them being “alleged” unlicensed contractors, so kindly excuse my ignorance.

    Myself? I look at the contractors state licensing board and they’re either licensed or they aren’t. There is no gray area in this for me, a non-lawyer/non-judge.

    In discussions with SEIU lobbyists, they did not hesitate in calling it like they see it and what they see parallels the comments made by non-judges / non-lawyers.

    • Obi:

      With almost a decade of serving on the California Judges Association Ethics Committee, almost as many years teaching Judicial Ethics, and recently helping to create the latest curriculum for the Qualifying Ethics program that just about every current and retired judge and justice participates in, I can say that your hypothetical question does not have an easy answer. Sorry, but there it is.

      Generally, the Canons of Ethics have been interpreted to say that judges have the same obligations as other members of society when it comes to reporting activity to the authorities. A heightened responsibility is in place when a judge possesses actual knowledge that another judge has violated the Canons; then a judge has the obligation to take corrective action which may, but does not necessarily, include reporting the judge to appropriate authorities (such as a Supervising Judge, the Presiding Judge or Justice, or the Commission on Judicial Performance).

      As for contact with other political officials such as legislators, the Canons of Ethics are generally interpreted to prohibit political activity except as it concerns the promotion of the administration of justice and other issues related to the Judicial Branch. Even when the topic is well within this purview, a judge is required to conduct herself or himself at all times in a manner that does not demean the judicial office.

      Whether any judge can specifically take the actions you raise in your hypothetical is beyond the scope of my message here. That would be something to ask a judge who has all the facts and is actually considering taking some sort of action.

      Best Regards,
      Tim Fall
      Judge, Yolo Superior Court

      • Judge Fall, thank you.

        That tells me that just like the AOC, you need some administrative arms distance and advocacy to push your agenda, just like the Judicial Council has via the AOC. Not being able to call for an investigation with a legislator based on information and belief, short of the actual facts seemingly leaves your hands tied.

        Your hands are more tied than those of the media.

      • Obi-Wan Kenobi

        Judge Fall, thank you.

        That tells me that just like the AOC, you need some administrative arms distance and advocacy to push your agenda, just like the Judicial Council has via the AOC. Not being able to call for an investigation with a legislator based on information and belief, short of the actual facts seemingly leaves your hands tied.

        Your hands are more tied than those of the media.

  7. Some free advice for ACJ:

    1. Get your own web page (no offence AOCW).
    2. Include a blog.
    3. Form as a (c)(4) if you have not already, then you can receive donations for advocacy.
    4. Send letters to the party leaders in each house of the Legislature and demand another hearing on the AOC.
    5. Offer to testify and find witnesses.

    All of this is legal, protected activity under the laws of the state.

    Focus on voters and taxpayers. It’s the way to win.

    • Composite Knuckles

      Good advice Mary. I reviewed the ACJ Web page and frankly, you can do better ACJ! Talk to the leadership of CJA and see what corporate status is best for you to form under, if you want to work in tandem (one being membership, one being advocacy, etc.). There are a ton of people who would give donations (large and small) to ACJ if they truly felt that the organization was truly working for improvement of the courts and employees at the AOC. It is one branch!

      Good work by all – don’t be discouraged. For people who have followed the courts and AOC for 20+ years, to have two judges abstain is huge! This is only the beginning of the year. Think great.

  8. Obi-Wan Kenobi is up and running. It needs to be pepetually maintained and developed, it can’t remain static and links should all work.

  9. Dear Obi:

    Judge Fall is, in my opinion, spot on.

    This blog has raised some very interesting issues for judges of this state. For example, the information about the Shapiro Fund.

    I trust you will do the right thing with the information available to you.

    • I also would like to extend my offer Judge Maino to file a complaint with the FPPC to investigate the gift issue. But if it is being taken care of by someone else, let me know.

  10. Sorry, but I’m angry. The CJ’s behavior at yesterday’s business meeting was, in my opinion, disrespectful. I couldn’t believe my ears at the way he interrupted Judge Lampe. It’s my hope that, come November, the voters will return the favor by “interrupting” the CJ’s tenure on the bench. Let his honor return to LA to cavort with the Shapiros, et al. As for relying on timely and accurate information from Ms. Spero and Mr. Kann, the AOC’s staff to the Executive and Planning Committee, don’t count on that! You’ve heard the old joke about multiple hands to screw in a light bulb? Well, it could have been dreamt up with the two of them in mind.

  11. Oldtimer, like you, I was initially discouraged by the events of yesterday’s council meeting and the Chief Justice’s treatment of Judge Lampe. Today I’m feeling a little better and want to thank Judge Lampe and the ACJ for persevering in such an unreceptive environment. While the ACJ’s call for a democratized judicial branch governance structure was cut short yesterday, the Chief’s peremptory behavior toward Judge Lampe went a long way toward demonstrating (to the many constituents observing the proceedings) why those reforms are necessary.

  12. Mary Hart:

    Sure go ahead. Be careful as these folks are capable of causing a lot of damage if you are in any way subject to their power.

    In the meantime I am going to go back and get information from this blog on the issue and draft something up just in case. This Shapiro fund does not have a good feel about it as it is a lot of money and there seems no record of where it was spent and for what. In addition, the fact that the Judicial Council has never given a public thanks to Mr. Shapiro sounds suspicious. For the sake of our branch of government I hope there is nothing amiss.

    My P.O. is Is Box 2987, La Jolla, Calif. 92038.

    Unless I have your explicit permission I will not share anything you send me with anyone.

  13. Nathaniel Woodhull

    Shapiro (B.S., J.D., University of California, Los Angeles (U.C.L.A.)), a native of Lithuania, is a leader of several business enterprises. He holds the positions of chair of Avondale Investment Company, chair of C.N.A. Property Company, and chair of Raps Industries. His community activities currently include membership on boards of the U.C.L.A. Foundation, the U.C.L.A. Law School, the United Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation, the Spastic Children’s Endowment Foundation, and United Friends of the Children.

    Can anyone accepting gifts from the Shapiro Foundation hear cases involving any of these entitites?

  14. Great question Nathaniel. The issue is not Mr Shapiro he appears to be a sincerely good and incredibly decent charitable person. The issue is the appearance of fairness should one of the above entities be sued and the Judge hearing the case was treated to gifts Mr Shapiro’s foundation provided to the AOC or Judicial Council or both.

  15. The AOC does have a “gift” policy that sets forth requirements for the trial courts to follow in the event that gifts are offered and accepted. “The purpose of the policy is to establish uniform guidelines for the trial court to use in deciding what unsolicited gifts of personal property it may accept and acknowdedging, documenting, monitoring, accounting for, and reporting those gifts.” For example: “The Court Executive Officer or a designee will document the courts acceptance of each gift, the date that the court received the gift, the name and address of the donor, a description of the gift, the value of the gift,…and any donor conditions or instructions.”

    Additionally, the policy mandates that “Financial gifts will be segregated in the court’s accounting records. Moreover, deposits and expenditures of financial gifts will be maintained, monitored, and accounted for separately.”

    Regarding gift monitoring and reporting the policy requires, “On a quarterly basis, the trial court will prepare and submit to the AOC Office of Budget and Management a report of gifts that the court accepted during the preceeding quarter.”

    The AOC policy further sets forth criteria to be considered prior to acceptance of a gift including, “whether acceptance of the gift would create the appearance of undue influence or a conflict of interest for the court, or would impair the public confidence in its integrity or impartiality…”

    Under Rule of Court 6.102, only the Administrative Director of the Courts or the Administrative Director of the Court’s designee may accept gifts of real or personal property on behalf of the Judicial Council, [or] the Administrative Office of the Courts.

    The policy that is referenced above specifically states that it applies to the acceptance of gifts by the “trial court.” Other than the reference to the Rule of Court that authorizes the Administrative Director or the designee to accept gifts for the Judicial Council or the AOC , no reference is made in the document to the policy being applicable to the AOC itself.

    Included in the document is a specific written designation of authority from Vickrey to trial court executive officers to accept gifts on behalf of their trial courts. Under Rule of Court 6.102, Vickrey himself as the Administrative Director of the court has the sole authority to accept gifts on behalf of the Judicial Council or the AOC. In other words, the gift issue falls squarely at Vickrey’s feet.

    One would reasonably expect that the AOC would be as diligent in its own receipt of gifts as it expects of the trial courts. That the AOC would act reasonably and diligently in this regard, however, remains to be seen.

    The policy can be found at:

  16. Obi-Wan Kenobi

    Reasonable expectations and the AOC do not go hand-in-hand.

    One would also reasonably expect they wouldn’t be funneling no-bid contracts to unlicensed contractors.

    One would reasonably expect they would have called in law enforcement for an investigation with respect to the above – yet they have not.

    One would reasonably expect they would file a crime report on an embezzlement case worth over a hundred grand.

    One would reasonably expect that a guy who fires or forces out most of his whole Human Resources division is the problem – and not the nearly 100% turnover of employees who were fired or forced out. Most especially after it was disclosed he left much litigation in his wake at the community college districts he worked for where he did the same thing and the LAMTA where he did the same.

    One would reasonably expect that a chief justice who is up for re-election would do something about all of this – unless he is directly involved in all of this, in which case, nothing is what he would do. And nothing he has done.

    One would reasonably expect much from the AOC. However, the AOC is above the laws that govern the rest of California and until that changes, one can reasonably expect that the AOC will continue its lawless activity believing themselves to be the “untouchable branch of government”

  17. Omerta has just read the rules re gifts as posted by Sunshine. Everyone who reads this should read them.

    If the rules have been followed there should be an accounting entry showing the receipt of the Shapiro money. And accounting showing where the $76,5000.00 has gone. Mr. Vickrey is in charge of this and should have the information.

    Which brings up another issue and that is the art work which is said to be in the possession of the Supreme Court. Has this artwork been purchased and if so what was the source of the funds? If it is a gift then where has Mr. Vickrey listed this in the accounting he is required to do?

    If it is a “loan”then who loaned it and what are the terms of the loan?

    Although Omerta gets a paycheck from the Judicial Council/AOC he/she has never been to the offices of the Supreme Court and has,therefore, not seen the artwork. Is there any information on this from anyone?

  18. Yes, Omerta, glad you asked.

    In the CourtNews publication from March-April, 1999 in the article titled “Art Flourishs at AOC and Courts’ Civic Center Home” located at the following link, the source of funds for the artwork came from the State of California, General Services Administration.

    Look at the article on page 9 of 16

    Quotes from the article follow:

    “through Mrs. George’s efforts the Art Committee found something far more tangible: a 1.5 million art budget…”

    “through Mrs. George’s involvement in the Arts Council, project representatives approached the General Services Administration, and…an art budget was born.”

    Mrs. George, chair of the Art Committee for the Civic Center Complex,expressed “I’ve learned and firmly believe that the placement of art in a public building instills a sense of well-being among those who work there.”

    Given the 1.5 million dollar budget provided to the Art Selection Committee from the State of California General Services Fund, one would reasonably expect extensive documentation regarding the art purchases.


  19. Omerta, the art can be seen in the halls of the AOC’s offices at 455 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, floors 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. My understanding is that no $ were expended for the various pieces, but I’m not sure what the exact arrangements are — on loan or donations. To see a screenshot of Andrew George’s (the CJ’s photographer son) contribution to the collection, visit

  20. Thanks. If it is a donation it should appear on form 801. I can find no 801 form ever filed by the AOC.

    Certainly the AOC knows that the “ärrangements”are but they will not tell us will they?

    Why would anyone donate valuable art work to the Supreme Court? There are some exceptions but most people who donate or make gifts expect something in return. To make sure it is a true gift or donation and not a bribe or quasi-bribe we have public disclosure of all gifts and donations.

    Five floors of art work and no form 801 and nothing in the minutes of the Judicial Council thanking anyone?

    Cui bono?

  21. Speaking of cronyism at AOC: how has Jody Patel, the Regional Director for the Northern Central Regional Office managed to hire or be hired by Curt Soderland – for over 30 years?

    The same Regional Director who got a 10% raise in 2008.

  22. La Boca, good question and how did Jody manage to be come CEO of the SACTO court and then the Northern Region director, both after Mike Roddy left those posts? How has Sheila Cabrallo managed to hire most of her former administrative staff from Ventura to work in the Southern Regional Office? And how does someone get to be the “scholar in residence” at the AOC? Not to mention for former court administrators hired by the AOC for “special projects”, no bid multi million dollar contracts, etc., etc. This patronage system stinks worse than past administrations in the City of Chicago!

    • And let’s not forget the male independent contractors working for Burbank management (Sheila and Margie) and charged with deploying the CCMS application who have made no progress in 4+ years deploying the CCMS Civil application. These folks are not AOC employees yet have been working on CCMS for as many as 9+ years at outrageous hourly rates that bear no relationship to market conditions.

  23. Someone should ask San Diego just how much it cost to deploy CCMS in their court. Rumor was that they had a lot of Deloitte people running around and total costs were in the realm of $40m. Now, just where did a court find that kind of coin??? What is Deloitte going to charge for the other case types when they go there?

    • The same question could be put to Orange and Sacramento SCs as well…

    • If you go back and look at the special funds reports to legislature and the most recent allocation approved by the JC from these funds and TCTF, I think you will find that the courts have not been paying for deployment. In effect, all courts have been paying for deployment in San Diego, Orange and, this year, in SLO.

  24. Real Party in Interest

    Please don’t tell me this is the “pay as you go” approach. Thank you for your posts, 007. Very informative.