Spending Cartoon

California moves to provide interpreters in all court cases

America going down hill.

Going through a divorce has been difficult for Sepideh Saeedi. Not understanding what's happening in court because she isn't proficient in English has made the process even harder.

"When you don't understand what the judge is saying, what the other side's attorney is saying, it's very stressful," Saeedi, 33, who speaks Farsi, said after a recent court hearing in Redwood City, Calif.
Legal advocates say throughout the state, litigants in divorce, child custody, eviction and other civil cases who have difficulty with English are going into court without qualified interpreters. Instead, many are forced to turn to friends or family members -- or worse yet, the opposing party -- for translation.
That's because California only guarantees access to an interpreter in criminal cases, not civil cases.
But the state is looking to change that. Under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice, California's Judicial Council this year approved a plan to extend free interpretation services to all cases by 2017.
"You can't have a court hearing without having your client understand it correctly," said Protima Pandey, a staff attorney with Bay Area Legal Aid.
Pandey said she always makes sure an interpreter is available for her clients, but many litigants in family court don't have attorneys to do that for them.
California court officials say extending interpreter services to all cases won't be easy.
California has the nation's largest court system spread out over a vast geographic area with many rural counties. The state has about seven million residents with limited English proficiency who speak over 200 languages.
The courts have also faced funding cuts in recent years that have seen courthouses close and staff cut. There is no estimate yet on how much it would cost to provide interpreters in all cases, but the plan approved by the judicial council said the courts would need more than the $92 million they were spending.
"California's judiciary is committed to language access and eager to work out the best way to get that done," said California State Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, who heads the group in charge of implementing the state's language access goals.
Critics say the state has dragged its feet.
"Our input all along has been that they can do it sooner," said Mary Lou Aranguren, legislative chair of the California Federation of Interpreters, a union representing court interpreters. "There's a lot of excuses the courts have used for years."
California was among 10 states that did not have a law, rule or guiding document requiring courts to provide interpreters in all criminal and civil cases, according to a 2014 survey by the National Center for Access to Justice at Cardozo Law School. The other states in the survey: Alaska, Illinois, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming and Vermont.
A 2013 letter from the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice said state law and court rules placed limits on providing free, qualified interpreters in non-criminal cases, and courts were not using all of the money in a fund used to pay for the services of interpreters.
"It's understandable that people think the court hasn't moved as quickly as it should have," said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Manuel Covarrubias, vice-chair of the language access implementation task force.
He said the courts have been working on the issue but have been sidetracked by financial difficulties.
The state last year passed a law authorizing courts to provide interpreters for free in all civil cases. Where there isn't sufficient funding, the law says courts should prioritize cases, starting with domestic violence, harassment and elder abuse civil cases.
Outside the San Mateo County courtroom where Saeedi appeared, a sign informed people that they had to bring their own interpreters. Saeedi has an attorney who she said is able to explain the proceedings to her afterward. She also relies on an online translator service available through Google to check words and phrases that come up.
San Mateo County court officials say they provide interpreters in all domestic violence family law cases, and in other family law cases, only when they can. They have had trouble finding qualified interpreters, and don't want to hire new interpreters too quickly for fear the state funding used to pay for expanded services may dry up.
"That would be irresponsible to the employees we hire," said John Fitton, the court's executive officer.
Some courts have been extending the provision of interpreters. Los Angeles County, which was part of the Justice Department's probe, has been among the most aggressive in expanding access to interpreters, legal advocates say.
In addition to domestic violence restraining orders, the court now provides interpreters to anyone who needs them in other family cases, as well as eviction, child guardianship, conservatorship, civil harassment and small claims cases.
The rollout has faced challenges. The court has found it difficult to find certified interpreters in some languages with origins in South America, said Carolyn Kuhl, the court's presiding judge. And travel times for interpreters needed in more than one courthouse on the same day can be a challenge.
But so far, the court has been able to meet the needs, and judges are pleased, according to Kuhl.
"Not having to worry about the language skills of someone in the family or whoever else might be there to interpret is a relief to these judges," she said.

Trump details domestic, foreign policies, answers critics, matches fellow challengers

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday released details on his domestic and foreign policy plans, including perhaps using U.S. ground troops to fight Islamic State militants, after weeks of criticism that his campaign has been short on specifics.

Trump entered the race in mid-June, making him among the last in the 2016 presidential race to say exactly what he would do, if elected, about such issues as illegal immigration, Islamic extremist groups and continued funding for Planned Parenthood.
The billionaire New York real estate tycoon and former reality TV star announced his plans on his website and on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Trump said he also would demand money from Middle East countries supported by the United States to help pay for the fight against extremist groups.
He said the key is to take away the wealth of Islamic State militants and other extremists by taking back the oil fields under their control in Iraq and that such a move could require ground troops.
Trump said the U.S. defends Saudi Arabia largely because of its vast oil supply.
“We send our ships. We send our planes,” he told NBC. “We get nothing. Why? They're making a billion a day.”
On domestic policy, Trump, who is shown in most polls to be leading the crowded GOP field of 17, said he would consider shutting down the federal government over funding for Planned Parenthood.
He says he isn't sure whether he has donated money to the organization in the past, but adds that he would oppose providing federal funds if it continues providing abortion services.
Some Capitol Hill Republicans have talked recently about de-funding the group since secretly recorded videos exposed the group’s involvement in the legal but controversial selling of aborted fetus tissue for research.
Trump says he would ask nominees to the Supreme Court about their views on abortion and would take their views into consideration as he made a decision on whom to nominate. He says he opposes abortion except in case of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
Fellow 2016 GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson on Sunday also tried to define his stance on abortion.
He told “Fox News Sunday” that life begins when conception occurs and argued he doesn’t condone abortions in cases of rape and incest, instead calling for administering a drug that prevents ovulation.
Most all of the other major candidates have also announced at least the frameworks of their domestic and foreign policies.
All three major Democratic candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley -- have, for example, issued competing policy statements on more affordable college education.
On Sunday, Trump also calling the nuclear agreement forged between Iran and world powers -- including the U.S. -- "a bad deal."
He argued that Iran will have nuclear weapons and take over parts of the world, saying, “I think it's going to lead to nuclear holocaust.”
Trump also said he wants to end birthright citizenship, rescind President Obama's executive orders on immigration and deport those in the U.S. illegally while providing an expedited return process for "the good ones."
Trump also stuck by the vow he made when announcing his campaign that if elected he would build a wall along the southern U.S. border and have Mexico pay the cost.
“The cost of building a permanent border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their communities, schools and unemployment offices,” Trump said on his website. “Mexico must pay for the wall.”
He vowed several consequences until Mexico pays for the wall, including an increase of fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican chief executives and diplomats and at ports of entry to the U.S. from Mexico.

Holdout Arizona GOP Sen. Flake says he'll vote against Iran nuclear deal

PHOENIX  –  Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, the lone Republican senator who was considering support for the Iran nuclear deal, announced plans on Saturday to vote no, dealing a significant blow to the White House's efforts to garner bipartisan backing for the controversial accord.

Flake, a freshman who had praised President Obama for seeking a diplomatic solution, had been publicly undecided, making him a top target of the White House's concerted lobbying campaign. Senate vote-counters had considered Flake the only truly undecided GOP vote, although his fellow Republicans had expressed confidence he would oppose it.
"I cannot vote in support of this deal," Flake said.
In a statement issued while Congress was on its annual August recess, Flake said he was concerned that the deal severely limits lawmakers' ability to sanction Iran for activities unrelated to its nuclear program. Obama has argued that multilateral sanctions under the United Nations umbrella will be lifted under the deal, but that the U.S. will retain sanctions punishing Iran for other issues like human rights and its support for extremist groups like Hezbollah.
"As written, this agreement gives Iran leverage it currently doesn't have," Flake said.
Flake's opposition to the deal all but guarantees that no Republicans — at least in the Senate — will back the deal, which Obama hopes will form a cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy by preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon for more than a decade. The White House offered no specific reaction to Flake's announcement, but pointed out that in the last week, seven Democrats have announced their support.
All told, 20 Senate Democrats have backed the deal, with one -- New York Sen. Chuck Schumer -- opposing it. Forty-six House Democrats have supported the deal, compared to 10 who are opposed.
Flake, who has bucked Republican leadership on a number of issues in his first Senate term, had commended the administration for seeking alternatives to military action against Iran, inspiring optimism at the White House that he might back the final deal.
Just a day earlier, Flake traveled to Cuba with Secretary of State John Kerry to attend the flag-raising at the reopened the U.S. Embassy in Cuba, another foreign policy move by Obama that most Republicans oppose.
Yet in his home state, Flake had been the target of weeklong barrage of attack ads running in Phoenix featuring a former soldier wounded in Iraq by an Iranian-made bomb. The soldier, whose face is badly scarred, said those who vote for the deal will "be held accountable."
"They will have blood on their hands," the soldier said in the ad.
Congress has until Sept. 17 to vote on a resolution either approving or disapproving the pact. Although Obama doesn't need explicit congressional approval for the deal, the resolution could scuttle the deal by blocking Obama's ability to lift harsh economic sanctions — the key concession that got Iran to agree to the deal.

Gowdy: Clinton to testify in October before Benghazi panel, all questions ‘asked’ and ‘answered’

South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said Sunday that Hillary Clinton will indeed testify Oct. 22 about her activities as secretary of state at the time of the Benghazi attacks but suggested that her demand for a one-time appearance will result in a long, hard day.

“We have agreed on the date,” Gowdy, a Republican and chairman of House’s Select Committee on Benghazi, told “Fox News Sunday.”
“And the ground rules are simple: You're going to stay there until all of the questions are asked and answered with respect to Benghazi," he continued. "If she's going to insist that she's only coming once, I'm going to insist that once be fully constructed, which means she's going to be there for a while.”
Gowdy said questions about Clinton’s growing email controversy will be part of the hearing only because they're relevant to his task of finding out what Clinton knew prior to the fatal Sept. 11, 2012, terror attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya.
U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attacks.
Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Among questions still being pursued are how much did the Obama administration know about the possibility of a terror attack and did the outpost have adequate security.
The email controversy essentially centers on Clinton using a private server and email accounts while serving as the country’s top diplomat.
“Had she not had this email arrangement with herself, you wouldn't be talking to me this morning,” Gowdy told Fox on Sunday. “So, my focus is on the four murdered Americans in Benghazi. But before I can write the final definitive accounting of that, I have to make sure that the public record is complete.”
Clinton, the front running Democratic presidential candidate, has said she had no knowledge of sending or receiving information marked as classified, that she has done nothing wrong and intends to cooperate with investigations.
However, thousands of pages of her emails publicly released in recent months show she received messages later marked classified, including some that contained material regarding the production and dissemination of U.S. intelligence information.
And a recent inspector general probe raised concerns about whether classified information had traversed the email system, resulting in a counterintelligence referral being sent to the Justice Department. However, the referral did not allege criminal wrongdoing.
Intentionally transmitting classified information through an unsecured system would appear to be a violation of federal regulations.
This weekend, Clinton suggested the email controversy is also politically motivated.
“I won't get down in the mud with them,” she said. “I won't play politics with national security or dishonor the memory of those who we lost. I won't pretend that this is anything other than what it is, the same old partisan games we've seen so many times before.”
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, has repeatedly declined to comment on whether he thinks Clinton broke federal law with what he calls her “unique email arrangement.”
However, he said Sunday that he has confidence in the FBI’s handling of the server, which Clinton turned over last week, after repeated requests, and that the agency will be the neutral observer for which he has asked.
“I think (the FBI is) the premiere law enforcement agency in the world,” Gowdy said. “I think that they're as apolitical as anything can be in this culture, and I think they're going to go wherever the facts take them.”