Free legal help for San Luis Obispo homeless

After the Bureau of Audits stepped up to the plate and audited the Administrative Office of the Courts, it discovered miserable oversight of the operating funds it receives from the State’s General Fund as well as other “special funds” allocated to operate superior courts in California’s 58 counties.

Among other things, it found that the AOC was unable to accurately identify amounts it had “in reserve,” or what it actually spent on the development of its “new” statewide case management system. That system, which the AOC claimed would “streamline the courts, save money, and enhance public access,” was approved for funding at what the AOC claimed would cost a mere 30 million dollars.

That was 2003. In 2011, after the Audit came out, the Legislative Analyst’s Office did some number crunching of their own and found that, as of 2009, the courts had spent 400 million dollars on it in two years, while feeding false information to the Legislature and Governor’s Office to keep the money pouring in.

The same year, the estimated timeline for completion of the project had shifted from 2009 to 2015, and the cost estimate–(now based upon what the AOC had spent thus far)–was recalculated to be 1.9 BILLION.

As of 2011, the LAO estimates the cost to complete the unification of the state courts’ computer systems, and then connect them with the state’s social services and law enforcement computer systems will end up costing the taxpayers 3.5 BILLION dollars.

When the legislators, the Governor’s office and the LAO realized they had been deprived of the actual records of cost overruns and waste by the state’s judicial administration, it added “trailer” bills to the 1997 Trial Court Funding Act that would increase accountability of the AOC to account for where the money was going, what portion of it had been spent, and what had been squirrelled away by individual courts.

How did it plan to hold the courts accountable for their spending spree? By reducing money coming to it from the state’s General Fund, and shifting responsibility to the counties rather than the state to pay for security for the courts. That way, the courts would not have to pay for security from their own funds, but they could still have control over the level of security and the amount paid for it by changing exisiting state law to allow private companies to bid on a contract to provide court security–and to make the bidding process public.

As of 2011, the law permitted only sheriffs departments to bid on these contracts and to provide court security.

In order to soften the blow to the judiciary that their spending now needed to conform to the MINIMUM standards which other state agencies had to adhere to, and that their budget would have to be reduced, the state agreed to give them ALL the money which had previously been held in trust for the use of the state’s redevelopment agencies.

I think that must have been the reason California’s redevelopment agencies were axed by Governor Brown. The Courts needed more and more money and the state was, once again, “in a financial crisis.” But apparently not in enough of a crisis to put a cap on the local judiciary’s desire to add MORE benefits to their existing benefits.

Finally, everyone with a union job decided the courts should fill the void left by any reductions to its budget by increasing civil and criminal fees, fines, penalties, and the cost of court reporter transcripts to cover any “shortfall” in the superior courts’ spending habits.

In summary, homeless people are targeted for these “assessments” because they are the least likely to maintain a lengthy court defense–even when they are innocent of the charges and not deserving of the fine.

While the poor are threatened with fines that far exceed the statutory amount, our county judges continue to swap real estate amongst their colleagues without filing conflict of interest statements mandated by the court rules. Prosecutors continue to get “finders fees” from real estate developer/brokers when the property ends up in foreclosure proceedings before the “bench.”

The state’s taxpayers have the dubious distinction of paying more and more for a technological system that is becoming more like Hilter’s version of the “unified state.”

There are only two ways out of this cycle of local intimidation under color of “authority:” you can fight physically, or you can fall into the bottomless pit of bureaucratic rules, regulations and laws. To each his own, and more power to him who fights a malicious and corrupt authority.

That being said, here are some basic peices of information you need to get no matter which bureaucrat you have an issue with:

1. Get his full name.

2. Get his actual employment title, e.g., lieutenant, sargeant, captain, watch commander, or

Director of Superior Court Civil Operations,

General Counsel for the County of San Luis Obispo,

Chief Judge of the Superior Court, etc.

These are examples of titles of employment.

Why are they important?

Because each title reveals the duties, responsibilities and LIABILITIES for abuse of such authority.

3. Get the address of the employee’s place of ususal business. This is a matter of public record because that is where you send the SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT or COUNTERCLAIM (if you want to sue on a civil claim because it is you who have been wronged.)

4. If you lack the resources to sue the person who has deprived you of your basic constitutional right to live in peace and quiet enjoyment, and the right to be free from unlawful police intrusion into the sanctity of your living space, then make sure everyone knows what has been done to you.

5. If you can’t document the details of police harassment, because you are not much of a writer, then get a tape recorder, find a quiet space and talk into it like you were talking to your friend and let it all come out. Even if 90 per cent of what you say is the result of being angry or hurt, there will be nuggets of gold in the form of facts remembered and recorded, and legal issues identified upon which you can win a case–even though you may not recognize it as a legal issue worthy of victory.

6. Try to find at least one other person who you can keep communication with, and who will be your witness.

Just because you are at a disadvantage, does not necessarily mean you are wrong, or that you will lose your particular battle. Fight in a way that will be to your best advantage.