We have previously discussed the lack of priority in this country as Congress has spent trillions on wars and corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan while our most basic state and federal public programs and services are cut. Indeed, we spend billions on increasingly hostile countries like Pakistan or affluent countries like Israel while our educational system and infrastructure collapses. There is no greater example of that lack of priority than the decline of our court systems which are woefully underfunded and facing a growing crisis in dealing with civil and criminal cases. I often speak to judges and they all complain that they are overwhelmed and unable to meet the most basic demands of the legal system. In California, one court had to resort of a garage sale while another is imposing a $1 a page charge for people to get copies of needed court records. Our legal system is one of the most basic governmental functions — the very definition of a nation committed to the rule of law. However, California alone shows how dire the situation has become.
California has closed more than 50 courthouses and eliminated 3,900 full-time positions. The court estimates that it is short $266 million for minimal operations and $612 million to be fully functional. It also says that it would need $1.2 billion over three years to return services from past cuts.
The wait times for hearings is growing and the state is beginning to resemble India where people simply have little hope of a ruling on disputes — resulting in their avoidance of the courts or abandonment of cases. The Kings County Superior Court was faced with staff cuts and inadequate budgets and had to hold an actual garage sale to raise money.
The state is about to announce a new round of court closings to save money — increasing the barrier for judicial review and case resolution. Lines now stretch out the door and courts report increasing tension and even violence as people lose their tempers in waiting for hours.
In the meantime, Alameda County courts are now going to charge $1 per page to simply download documents — creating a financial barrier for many seeking to address legal issues. This is consistent with the increased use of toll roads and taxes for highways. What was once viewed as a basic function of the government (supported by general taxes) is now being treated as a privilege with a surcharge.
The federal system charges for PACER documents online, which I have always found objectionable as a court access issue, but they only charge 10 cents a page. With a cap of $3. The Alameda courts would cap it at $40.
I remain mystified by the short-sightedness of our budget decisions. Cutting educational, judicial, and other basic programs have collateral impacts and displaced costs that are simply ignored. The long-term impacts are particularly worrisome as we produce less competitive students for the new job market, reduce the availability of the courts for conflict resolution, and make add delays in transportation and other basic services. We are de-evolving as country as we spend wildly on foreign wars and aid while reducing our own level of public support and investment.
Source: LA Times
When I became a PI in Wi. in 1984 Circuit Court records varied from .10 to .25 a page. In the early 90’s, TWENTY years ago, the fee was standardized to $1.25/page! Now, I just passed the cost on to my clients. But, for poor folks needing copies of divorce and other records it is a burden. I agree we waste way too much tax dollars on wars and foreign aid. But, when I walk into govt. buildings on a daily basis, I see a lotta govt. employees sitting on their fat asses doing nothing. And, when you need their help, WHICH IS THEIR JOB, they have a huffy attitude. I learned how to schmooze them, but I would get agita having to do it.
Nick – I know that every one makes fun of backwards AZ, but in Maricopa County, all the country offices have boxes saying How are We Doing? With pencils and paper. And they take it seriously. They are very customer oriented.
Having been a contributor on this blog for a few years now, I have noticed over that time that a majority of our discussion topics revolve around the justice system (imagine THAT) in general and the courts in particular. Lots of bandwidth has been spent decrying the inherent unfairness of the system, etc. Perhaps closing these courts isn’t such a bad thing. Perhaps it could give California a chance to re-structure the courts in some way to make them actually work for a change. In a perfect would, those in power would take a look at the courts they have closed and say ‘Hey, here’s what we need to do to fix the system instead of throwing money at it’. Of course, I did use the caveat ‘In a perfect world’. Such a thing will never happen, but it is a nice pipe dream.
Kraaken – according to billing statements, the average attorney works a 60 hour week. If that is so, why shouldn’t the average judge?
Does it really matter? Those who commit the worst crimes are in Congress and managing the military-security-industrial complex, never subject to the legal system.
California is learning a lesson long in coming, one that many (I used to be able to say “most”) Americans already know: when you have finite money to spend, you can’t buy everything you want; you have to make choices based on priorities, return, etc. It seems to me that for every program, function, process, activity, role that has had its funding cut by California’s government, there are many citizens (and their blogs) who are outraged by the callousness and stupidity of their elected officials in reducing funding for such a valuable program. There is a reality long missing from politics, especially from “compassionate” politicians: we can’t have it all, we can’t provide it all, and we can’t take it all.
Reality is that it takes exorbitant amounts of money and forever and a day to use lawyers, and also the courts, for all but the very wealthy.
I see them both as self serving, unproductive and with the worst cost benefit ratio of the three branches of government plus the most mediocre, arrogant and incompetent employees that money can buy.
A total revamping of the methodology and productivity of the employees, with the focus on serving the citizenry instead of themselves and provided at affordable costs for the not wealthy peoples in needed.
I don’t expect this disgusting injustice will ever improve for us.
Maybe aw firms could ‘adopt’ a court for a month or so and pick up the tab. Certainly there are enough large firms in California that they could take turns.
Reblogged this on Taking Back America.
Were these civil or criminal courts? In Ohio, when Vinton County stated they’d have to release an accused murderer because the county lacked the money to hold a trial, the State government finally coughed up enough cash to cover expenses.
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
While I agree that courts need higher priority, the whole argument is remarkably confusing which, coming from Jonathan Turley, is surprising. Are we closing state courts, federal courts, or both? If state courts, or even if state courts are even part of the issue, what does that have to do with federal spending in fighting wars overseas? It also seems odd to argue budget priotities and then cite off-budget spending as the bad priority.
Then Paul says we are “running a surplus in order to build a bullet train.” California is running surplus, but the bullet train is being funded by a dedicated bond issue, and the surplus is temporary with spending prorities dictated by the ballot propositions which created it.
Bill – if their is a budget surplus, I would think it would help pay for the courts, but I am not sure how the funding for the courts works. Here the the cities pay for city courts, counties for superior courts, and the state for appellate courts. In Arizona they tried to close the courts on Fridays to save money, but there is a clause in the state constitution that requires they be open 5 days a week except for holidays.
Do law profession folks use hypothetical arguments because scientifically, verifiably, actually, accurate arguments in law would unambiguously demonstrate that the only way to preserve a system of law which, being deceptive, violates the essential laws of nature, is purely hypothetical?
I continue to ask people I meet to demonstrate the actual happening of one or more actually avoidable events of any sort whatsoever. I have never come upon anyone who has been able to do that.
I happen to have arrived on earth with what seems to me to be a form of autism such that I have never been able to actually believe that any event of any kind that actually happened could actually have happened other than as it happened.
Therefore, I have never been able to believe that actual mens rea can ever actually exist; what does apparently exist is a hypothetical notion that I find is stunningly socially contagious and atrociously neurologically addictive.
Someone will have to scientifically (hence, accurately) demonstrate how someone who has been found guilty of some violation of law could have avoided said violation through some demonstrably achievable process, else I can never regard anyone as ever actually being guilty of anything.
For more than a quarter century, I have asked people the three questions of my doctoral thesis and dissertation:
1. Ever make mistakes?
2. Ever make a mistake you shouldn’t have made?
3. Ever make a mistake you could have avoided?
While many people (something around 3000 as best I can guess) have answered, “Yes,” to all three of those questions, not one person has ever been able to truthfully describe to me any mistake ever actually made, no matter what the mistake or its consequences, that could actually have been avoided through any actually-achievable process.
Hypothetically avoidable mistakes exist in multiple infinitudes.
The existential eternal set of all actually avoidable mistakes that can ever actually happen is of the empty set of empty sets.
A demonstration to the contrary is most genuinely welcome.
Sincere belief in an absolute existential falsehood for thousands upon thousands of years of human social development does not make the falsehood not false, though it can make the falsehood sincerely believable as though not actually false.
An actual demonstration to the contrary is most genuinely welcome.
I await the demonstration.
Were it within my power so to do, I will wait for an infinitude of eternities for said demonstration, if necessary.
I don’t ever see any federal courts closing because of budget cut, does that mean we are almost federalized?
Garage sale? I’m making a list of things:
Got have a gavel, leather high back chair (8 way adjustable), laptop (malware free), anything wireless, and a flat screen monitor.
Oops!
Was intended to read:
“Have we, as a society…”
While I am at it, whatever “it” may be…
During my work doing engineering-type things, I happened to have been asked to design and build some electronic test equipment for use by one or more government contractors, the equipment to be used to verify that the products produced by the contractor(s) actually met government standards.
The electronic test equipment i designed and built had to actually and verifiably meet government standards in terms of the accuracy of the measurements made using said test equipment.
There was no room for the test equipment hypothetically meeting said government standards, the accuracy of the equipment had to be accurately traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and Technology).
In engineering terms, hypothetically, the booster rocket o-rings on the final flight of the Challenger Space Shuttle sealed perfectly and Christa McAuliffe hypothetically returned from space rejoicing about her teaching from space, being one of many teachers who have done similarly since.
Tragedies ensue when people act on falsehoods that are hypothetically true and which, when acted upon with unbounded sincerity, have profoundly tragic effects, such as killing people.
Methinks that sincerity and actual truthfulness may be almost perfectly uncorrelated, except, perhaps, negatively?
Is hypothetical sincerity the inverse function of actual truthfulness?
People don’t get it, do they?
Even when you carefully spelled out the negative repercussions from these budget cuts. those who are commenting either focus on irrelevancies (Sharia Law), or say it is all the fault of the court, and can’t we cut the pay of the people even more.
Yes we need to stop spending money on unwinnable non-wars, but we also have to acknowledge that starving the government does not make it strong. Last I heard, California state courts are funded locally, not via the federal government, so foreign battles are not impacting on them. Or shouldn’t be.
That $1.00 fee per page is appalling. That a court would actually hold a garage sale is appalling. But this is all happening because rich people don’t want to pay more in taxes and the rest of the people are duped into thinking this is a good thing.
Absolutely. It’s all about deception–for the sake of money. The military is free access to the piggy bank, and that dictates how things work. The rest of us aren’t part anymore, we’re just along for the ride. That is until the big crash comes…
I am a court commissioner in Wisconsin and see the same problems you describe in California (and at the federal court level) in Wisconsin. We are appointed by the judges-state employees- to handle a number of their functions (in essence, the county pays the costs of the commissioners to save the state from the additional costs of judges). It is efficient and economical to the state. We handle small claims trials, ministerial functions of the court, return dates, family court matters (post and pre-judgment), etc… The State of Wisconsin has a $10+million budget shortfall for the court system, yet when the state found itself with a $500 million surplus in 2013, the Governor chose to use that for property tax relief ($300 per qualified home owner) and now projects a $700 million shortfall for 2015. Poor political decisions surely is part of the problem (e.g., the tax relief came on the heels of the Governor’s recall election), however from my work experience, the other problem is the misuse of the system: overly litigious people, revolving door litigants, and frivolous filings have compounded the problem here, and I imagine in other states such as California as well. I don’t have the answer to this problem; I understand that imposing costs on litigants may ensure that only the true disputes will be pursued…yet, this may impair those who are indigent from pursuing proper disputes as well. In that regard, the poor are politically disenfranchised and not likely to get the same benefits (or have the same voice) as taxpayers,home owners, corporatations and others who are economically advantaged…i.e., those who generally vote!
To me, our system of government has become as though like a moth in a death spiral, attracted to a candle flame which will incinerate the moth.
Have we, a a society, very nearly death-spiraled into a government of deception, by deception, for deception?
What is deception if other than sincerely believing that what is actually true is hypothetically false and, contiguously, sincerely believing that what is actually false is hypothetically true?
Poor spending habits require a tightened belt, regardless of who is doing it. You could ask the judges to take a pay cut?
I thought Governor Moonbeam was running a surplus so he could build his bullet train. There should be no reason for closing the court houses.
Except, let’s look at this. If they were closing Federal court houses, then we could complain about spending money on
. Are the courts getting money from the county or the state? Who is have the money difficulty? We know that California has been in financial difficulties for some time with several cities going into bankruptcy.
we give money to countries in which so called Sharia law, or the law of the Koran, is practiced while we starve our own judicial system. When will we ever learn that a nation’s first responsibility is to its own citizens