Los Angeles, CA. On July 13, 2009 a Superior Court hearing was held on the Judicial Watch motion for Injunctive Relief in the Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles case BC351286, a taxpayers lawsuit where in October 2008, the Fourth Appellate Court District decision found of Los Angeles County payments to the Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court were illegal. The decision was upheld by the California Supreme Court when a petition for rehearing was denied to the Los Angeles Superior Court who had hired Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, one of the most powerful and influential legal firms in the country.
Specially appointed Appellate Court Judge James A. Richman from San Francisco presided on this July 13th hearing and after oral arguments, took the matter into submission. His decision on the Judicial Watch motion for an injunction is expected in 30 to 60 days.
The Full Disclosure Network® presents an eleven minute Video News Report on that hearing with interviews of the Judicial Watch attorneys Sterling Norris and Paul Orfanedes who describe what happened in the court room and the background of the case.
Claiming that the emergency provision inserted into the February 11, 2009 Budget Bill, known as SBX 2 11 had retroactively made the County’s payments to the Judges legal, it also provided for Judicial criminal immunity from prosecution and liability and to the County officials involved in the transfer of what has been estimated to be almost $300 million dollars over the past twenty years.
Full Disclosure Network® contacted the following Court officials to interview them on this matter but has been told that the Judges and their legal counsel do not want to be interviewed on this case.
- Judge Mary Wiss, President California Judges Association
- Michael Belote, Cal Advocates Lobbyist for CJA on SBX 2 11
- Judge Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
- J. Frederick Bennett, L.A. Superior Court Legal Counsel
- Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (for Superior Court)
Here is a link to an exclusive video covering the issue of Sturgeon vs County of L.A. and the Judicial Watch taxpayers lawsuit. These videos are also featured on the Full Disclosure Network® website soon and is to be distributed to over 45 cable systems in California, and to cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Manhattan, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.
Comments to date: 32. This is page 1 of 4.
Truth Seeker Location unknown
Posted: 09:23 am [PST] on January 24 2010
@ Courtwatch. Please work with Leslie Dutton on a report NAMING NAMES. We deserve the right to know the names of these Judges. All 2000 of them. We deserve the right to know, from top to bottom, who came up with the sudden SBX211 "Bill/Law" to make these payments legal. Every one of them.
It's extremely interesting that Marin County and San Diego County are now undergoing "audits" for Court Corruption, but Los Angeles, which is where THIS part of the corruption started has been left out. Los Angeles is the center of the septic system of Court Corruption, and the law makers as well. (Some who's spouses are Judges)
It appears that our Government is just really a large mafia. Why is Madoff in jail if these Judges aren't? They have done the exact same thing, but it's worse. He was at least caught, and stopped. There is no stopping the Government.
Leslie, please do a report, naming names of all the ones involved from top to bottom. Who drafted SBX 211, who supported it, and who is getting the payments. All 2000 names.
courtwatch Marin County
Posted: 08:03 pm [PST] on January 21 2010
For those of you who are interested in the Richard Fine issues, the statistics about the judicial perks he was complaining about can be found in the Judicial Council's December 15, 2009 report entitled "Historical Analysis of Disparities in Judicial Benefits". The key statistics are in attachment D, pages D-9 to D-14. In 2008, CA counties paid a total of $30,388,289 in "supplemental judicial benefits" to their judges, above and beyond their state salaries and benefits.$23,482,932 of this total $30.3 million was paid by Los Angeles County, to Los Angeles County judges. The report does not state how much each judge receives per capita, but it states that Los Angeles County has 436 judges-- that comes out to each LA judge receiving approximately $53,860 from LA County. Richard Fine challenged the LA judges, stating that those receiving these hefty benefits from LA County should not be hearing cases involving LA County. He also claimed the payments were illegal. In 2008, a court of appeal agreed that the payments were illegal.(Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 630.) According to the Judicial Council report (page 4), in response to the Sturgeon case, "the judicial branch sought legislation, Senate Bill X2 11".
The legislation, commonly known as SBX 211, was pushed through on an emergency basis. It allows judges to continue to receive these extra benefits, and also provides RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY from prosecution to counties paying the benefits, and judges receiving the benefits.
In other words, CA judges were taking the county benefits in violation of the law. When this was made public, the CA judiciary got emergency legislation passed, allowing them to continue to receive their benefits (while courts are being closed due to "budget constraints"), and also allowing them to escape prosecution. Meanwhile, the lawyer who had been challenging the LA bench for taking these hefty illegal perks for years, was disbarred and sent to jail, where he has been held in solitary confinement for almost a year.
The legality of SBX 211 has subsequently been challenged -- something the language of the legislation itself anticipated.
If you think this report on judicial benefits is interesting, check out the report issued the same day (12/15/09), by the CA Judicial Council's "Commission on Impartial Courts" recommending that judges be allowed to take campaign contributions from those who appear before them (although 75% of the public, and over 25% of judges, believe such contributions affect the outcome of cases), and also recommending AGAINST the implementation of Judicial Performance Evaluations--which consultants to the Judicial Council have repeatedly,strongly recommended.
Eve R. Ybody anywhere USA
Posted: 09:26 pm [PST] on December 16 2009
Look close at judge Thomas Trent Lewis's cases. You want to see true corruption? There you go...
mary beverly hills
Posted: 07:33 pm [PST] on December 16 2009
judges are corrupt
Ray Finn Oakland
Posted: 10:44 pm [PST] on December 05 2009
unethical conducts and corruption are prevalent in California court system
Sofia San Diego
Posted: 08:20 pm [PST] on November 05 2009
I believe it! Not surprised at all. Total corruption as usual!
John van Doorn San Diego
Posted: 09:32 am [PST] on November 05 2009
Your article forgot to mention all of the court decisions that affect county revenues as regards Federally mandated social programs.
Each child placed in foster care nets the county about $5,000/mo ($6,000 in reimbursements minus $600-800 to the care provider).
The county collects reimbursements for each dollar of child support collected (how easy is it to stick it to the non-custodial parent, then turn around and proclaim the economic needs of the child while the child is subject to even greater poverty in his second home. The greater the amount of collections, the greater the reimbursement to the county.
Then there is CPS, money for the county when they proclaim you 'may' have committed abuse (because you failed to prove conclusively you didn't), there's a lot of money involved here.
As stated in the article, the extra pay provided judges may compel them to rule favorably in the county's favor when the county is being sued, but these gains are small compared to the proceeds the county enjoys by unfairly administering these programs and getting the court's affirmation of their efforts. So much for these programs being implemented for the 'public good', unless the public good is primarily defined by the health of the county's coffers.
Max Ghera Pennsylvania
Posted: 12:03 pm [PST] on October 18 2009
And we wonder why we ended up with a Kenyan usurper in the white House...
Molly Shannon San Diego, CA
Posted: 04:19 pm [PST] on September 25 2009
San Diego Family Court is corrupt. We are vigorously protesting in front of family court on a regular basis.
rg west palm beach
Posted: 04:24 am [PST] on September 25 2009
quality is not just an appearance,it is a reflection of something internal. If you were dealing with quality judges you probably wouldn't have what you have...squabbling over 'tributes'.