Since the pandemic, Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg has joined hundreds of thousands of California’s lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants and witnesses and “Zoomed” in remotely to court hearings. For Umberg, a practicing attorney and former federal prosecutor from Santa Ana, using remote video to help chip away at California’s backlogged court system has been undeniably beneficial for everyday Californians who have to go to court for one reason or another.

They can log into their appearances on their phones or computers instead of taking a day off work to make a time-consuming trip to the courthouse, he said. By the same token, lawyers charge their clients less when they don’t have to bill them hundreds of dollars an hour to drive to and from court for routine procedural hearings that make up the bulk of a court’s daily calendar. “Remote access is a way to be able to reduce costs and create greater accessibility, particularly to those who are indigent,” Umberg told CalMatters, using the legal term for someone who is too poor to afford a lawyer.

Umberg wants to make remote court hearings permanent, so it’s been frustrating for him to see the issue turn into a tedious annual fight in the California Legislature, despite video hearings being wildly popular. Ninety-six percent of the people who’ve taken a survey after one of the more than 3.5 million remote court hearings since 2022 said they had a positive experience, according to the Judicial Council of California, of which Umberg is a member.

Yet rather than adopt a permanent law authorizing remote video in court, each year since 2021, lawmakers have temporarily extended the pandemic-era video program for another year or two. The latest extension is Umberg’s Senate Bill 92, which would allow criminal court proceedings to continue to be held via video for another year. If a law isn’t passed, no remote video will be allowed in criminal courtrooms after Dec. 31. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a similar bill that allowed remote technology in civil and certain juvenile proceedings until Jan. 1, 2026.

SEIU, public defenders oppose Umberg’s bill

The resistance to a permanent adoption comes primarily from the state’s public defenders associations and from one of the state’s most influential unions, Service Employees International Union California, which represents around 15,000 trial court workers in 34 counties. SEIU’s endorsements are highly sought in Democratic election campaigns, as is the union’s campaign cash.

SEIU’s state council and local affiliated unions have given more than $9.1 million to California’s sitting legislators’ election campaigns, according to data from OpenSecrets. The opponents say they don’t object to using video appearances in certain cases, particularly for routine procedural matters. But, for more serious proceedings, they cite concerns about fairness to defendants and accuracy in the official court record. They say some areas don’t have access to reliable internet, creating connectivity problems for those trying to Zoom in.

Court reporters worry about creating inaccurate transcripts when they can’t clearly hear video. More broadly, the opponents groups cite worries about maintaining the integrity of the justice system. “Too many things cannot be clear in a video call, such as overall demeanor, physical cues of emotional richness and the possibility of off-camera coaching,” Lesli Caldwell, a former Solano County public defender representing the California Public Defenders Association, told the Senate Public Safety Committee earlier this month.“Video evidence leads to dehumanization … of both witnesses and defendants.”

Courtroom workers also share those worries, said Michelle Castro, a retired lobbyist and director of government relations at SEIU California, who is now a consultant for the union. In an interview with CalMatters, she brushed off a reporter’s question about court workers being worried about the technology eventually replacing their jobs. Castro said SEIU’s court employees, particularly court reporters, are, however, worried about not being able to do their jobs well.

Castro said that as it stands, court reporters in the courtroom sometimes can’t clearly see or hear what’s being presented via video feed, leading to concerns that the reporters’ transcripts will be inaccurate, she said. “They have a license that says they’re required to provide a verbatim record that has to be 100% accurate,” Castro said. “If it’s not, it threatens their license.” Umberg said that to address those concerns and others, his pending legislation requires that a court reporter is present in the courtroom during a criminal hearing using remote video technology.

The court reporter can also pause the hearing at any time if the audio is unclear. Plus, Umberg said defendants can choose to attend hearings in person. The Judicial Council, the policymaking body of California’s courts, supports Umberg’s bill. The council said the bill contains several provisions to protect the integrity of the system, including requiring witnesses to attend felony trials in person, and it gives judges the authority to order in-person court proceedings when it is appropriate.

Will remote hearings bill get watered down?

That was enough to sway Umberg’s colleagues earlier this month on the Senate Public Safety Committee, where it passed unanimously, even though some committee Democrats had reservations. “I’ve said a million times: I am not a fan of remote court proceedings, remote depositions,” Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, a former San Francisco deputy city attorney who has a Harvard law degree, said during the hearing. “But I understand the reality of where the legal system is right now.

And I know that the authors and stakeholders have done a lot of work to put safeguards in place so that people are not forced into this.” In 2022, Umberg’s bill to allow remote hearings in civil proceedings through 2026 was amended over his objections, forcing him to take the unusual step of urging colleagues on the Senate floor to vote against his bill. Umberg was furious that the bill was changed to require, among other things, mentally ill people committed to state mental hospitals to attend in-person hearings. Mentally ill people, he said, had been allowed to attend court remotely from their hospitals even before the COVID-era rules took effect.

Two legislative sources, asking not to be identified to avoid criticism of SEIU, said the labor union was responsible for the amendment. Castro, the SEIU legislative advocate, said her team had nothing to do with the changed bill. The traumatic experience of transporting mentally ill patients would have saddled taxpayers with “millions and millions of dollars for reasons that are inexplicable,” Umberg said on the Senate floor. “If this bill is signed, we now will torture those who are in state hospitals. ” The Senate voted unanimously to kill the measure.

The following year, Newsom signed an extension of the program that Umberg could live with, allowing patients at state mental hospitals to keep attending court remotely as they had previously.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Californians want to use Zoom for court appearances. Will lawmakers let them? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Zoom will pay $85 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that weak privacy controls opened too many peepholes into the personal information of users and that it was too easy for outsiders to disrupt video meetings during the early stages of the pandemic.

The proposed agreement must still be approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 21 in San Jose, California.

Millions of people in the U.S. who have used Zoom since March 31, 2020 could be eligible for a slice of the settlement that was reached over the weekend. The payment amounts are expected to average $34 or $35 for those who subscribed to Zoom’s paid version, and $11 or $12 for the overwhelming majority who used the free version, based on estimates in court documents.

Zoom was bedeviled by security issues early last year after stay-at-home orders transformed the company’s videoconferencing service from a niche product into a cultural phenomenon. Almost overnight it became the go-to venue for business meetings, schools, social gatherings and, in a deadly global pandemic, funerals.

The lawsuit alleged that the Silicon Valley company violated the trust of millions of people by sharing the personal information of users with platforms like Facebook, Google and Microsoft-owned LinkedIn. The case, which consolidated 14 different lawsuits filed since March 2020, also targeted the disruptive practice of “Zoombombing” — a term coined to describe hackers who broke into videoconferencing meetings being held by others.

The company in a prepared statement Monday said that it acted quickly to tighten security after reports of Zoombombing began to surface.

“We are proud of the advancements we have made to our platform, and look forward to continuing to innovate with privacy and security at the forefront,” Zoom said Monday. The company didn’t acknowledged any wrongdoing in the settlement.

Security concerns did not prevent Zoom from permeating the daily lives of millions during the pandemic.

The Zoom’s annual revenue quadrupled last year to nearly $2.7 billion and it ended April with 497,000 customers that employed at least 10 workers and subscribed to the premium version of its service, up from 81,900 customers before the pandemic hit the U.S. Its stock price has tripled and traded close to $380 Monday.

The lawyers that pursued the case are seeking $21.25 million, or 25% of the $85 million settlement fund.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Zoom to pay $85M for privacy miscues at start of pandemic appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

While other venues are shut down amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the MSJC Theatre students will broadcast this special audio production safely from the San Jacinto Campus Theatre to your Zoom platform.

The public is welcome to register to tune in for this unique experience and support some extremely talented student actors. Tell your family and friends!

Register in advance for this wonderful show:

https://msjc-edu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_2f8bMr46Rq6r4rWlvnAJOw

For more information, please contact MSJC theatre instructor Bianca Swan-Finch at bswanfinch@msjc.edu.

MSJC • Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post MSJC Theatre Hosts Live Performance of ‘Devil’s Disciple’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ALTADENA, Calif. (AP) — A California man has been charged with stabbing his mother and uncle to death in an attack that the woman’s co-workers witnessed on a Zoom call, prosecutors said Monday.

Deputies responding to reports of a stabbing on March 22 discovered the man dead in the driveway of a home in the Los Angeles suburb of Altadena, according to Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials. The woman was found dead inside the house.

The victims were identified as Kenneth Preston, 69, and Carol Brown, 67.

“This is a horrific case in which the mother’s work colleagues witnessed part of the attack while on a Zoom call and called the authorities,” county District Attorney George Gascón said in a statement.

Authorities didn’t release additional details about the attack or what motivated it.

Deputies arrested Robert Anderson Cotton at the scene. The 32-year-old has been charged with two counts of murder with an allegation of using a knife as a deadly and dangerous weapon, prosecutors said.

It wasn’t immediately known if he has an attorney who could speak on his behalf.

Investigators said the three all lived at the house in the suburban neighborhood about 15 miles (24 kilometers) north of downtown Los Angeles.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Prosecutors say deadly California stabbing was seen on Zoom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Those looking to attend Thursday’s Artist’s Talk with Seed can log in with this Zoom information.
“Disrupted Realism” is the first book to survey the works of contemporary painters who are challenging and reshaping the tradition of Realism.

Helping art lovers, collectors, and artists approach and understand this compelling new phenomenon, it includes the works of 38 artists whose paintings respond to the subjectivity and disruptions of modern experience.

Seed, who believes we are “the most distracted society in the history of the world,” has selected artists he sees as visionaries in this developing movement. The artists’ impulses toward disruption are as individual as the artists themselves, but all share the need to include perception and emotion in their artistic process.

Six sections lay out and analyze common themes: “Toward Abstraction,” “Disrupted Bodies,” “Emotions and Identities,” “Myths and Visions,” “Patterns, Planes, and Formations,” and “Between Painting and Photography.” Interviews with each artist offer additional insight into some of the most incisive and relevant painting being created today.

Seed has written about art and artists for Arts of Asia, Art Ltd., Harvard Magazine, International Artist, Hyperallergic and the Huffington Post.

For more information, please visit www.msjc.edu/artgallery or contact Art Professor John Knuth at Jknuth@msjc.edu.

Mt. San Jacinto College serves about 27,000 students in a district covering 1,700 square miles from the San Gorgonio Pass to Temecula, with campuses in San Jacinto, Menifee, Banning and Temecula.

Late start classes for MSJC’s Fall 2020 semester begin Oct. 19. Registration for the 8-week courses begins online on Oct. 5.

In May 2020, Mt. San Jacinto College awarded a record-breaking 3,554 degrees and certificates to 1,958 graduates.

The post MSJC Art Gallery Presents Artist’s Talk with Author John Seed appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.