AG Jerry Brown: Did Governor & Legislature Wipe Away The Penal Code for Judges & Government Officials? .......... SBX 2 11 The Culprit?

Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

AG OPINION & IMMUNITY CLAUSE MISSING IN ACTION

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network has been investigating California Senate Bill SBX2 11 that was enacted into law on February 20, 2009 and became part of Government Code Sections 68220-222 on May 21, 2009. This controversial bill signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was intended to legalize "Double Benefits" for Judges by the county governments.

NO DEBATE BUT LOTS OF SECRECY

There was no debate or public scrutiny of the bill prior to the vote. These county payments to Judges were ruled illegal in an appellate court decision in a case brought by the Judicial Watch organization in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles that held the Judges who are State employees were not entitled to "double benefits" from the county due to a Constitutional Provision that Judges Salaries and benefits are to be set by the legislature and cannot be delegated.

WHY MISSING PARAGAPHS ON CRIMINAL IMMUNITY?

Most notably three important paragraphs in SBX2 11 were missing from Government Code Sections 68220, 68221,68222. These paragraphs included the most critical and controversial part of the bill, being that California Judges and county government officials were given retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability for crimes committed prior to May 21, 2009. What the bill doesn't say is what happens to the crimes committed after May 21st 2009? Is criminal behavior for government officials now legal?

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR NOW LEGAL FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?
"This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law. "

MISSING PARAGRAPHS = CONFUSION FOR COURT & COUNTY?

Why were these paragraphs missing? What impact does this have on conferring immunity for past crimes and future crimes? On September 9, 2009 Full Disclosure began to seek answers from the author of Senate SBX2 11 Senate Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, the California Judicial Council who apparently wrote the bill, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown whose job it is to prosecute criminal acts of public officials.

ATTORNEY GENERAL & JUDICIAL COUNCIL MUM

So far we have received answers to our questions from Senator Steinberg's spokesman, Jim Evans. We received a brief note from the Judicial Council Legislative staff basically concurring with Steinberg's office and NO response from the Attorney General, the Department of Justice or their Press Office. We sent a copy of our request to the Attorney General's "Opinion" supervisor Susan Lee, who wrote "we do not provide opinions to the public, only to elected officials".

ATTNY GENERAL OPINION SCUTTLED: Opinion Request Withdrawn May 31, 2009
09-401 (April 1, 2009)

Requested By: Commission on Judicial Performance

Assigned To: Deputy Attorney General Marc J. Nolan

Question(s):

• 1) Does the legislature have the authority to enact legislation that purports to preclude the commission from disciplining California superior court judges for authorizing supplemental compensation to be paid to themselves from public funds and/or receiving that supplemental compensation, on the ground that such benefits were or are not authorized by law?
• 2) Does section 2 of SB(x2) 11 (a) simply identify which judges are permitted as of the effective date of SB 11 to continue receiving supplemental compensation from the effective date forward, on the terms and conditions in effect on July 1, 2008, or (b) retroactively authorize all or some portion of supplemental compensation provided by counties to judges, or to judges by the judges themselves, so long as it was being provided as of July 1, 2008?
• 3) Has the Legislature adequately prescribed the supplemental compensation purportedly authorized by SB(x2) 11?
  The above was posted on the DOJ website 4-1-09 and withdrawn 5-31-09
  

WHY NO ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION?

Full Disclosure Network asked Senator Pro-Tem Steinberg's Spokesman Jim Evans to clarify some points regarding SBX2 11. Here are all the questions and answers (in a PDF file format) posed concerning SBX2 11. Basically, we were told the Senator (author) did not request an Attorney General opinion and when asked if they would seek one, the answer was "no" it is not necessary. Below is one of the many questions we asked about the retroactive criminal immunity.

• QUESTION:
  Is there any immunity covering present payments(to Judges by counties) of supplemental benefits which occur under the first paragraph (Government Code Section 68220) commencing as of May 21, 2009, the effective date of SBX2 11? I have read that the immunity to be retroactive only and not applying to the present benefits because of the use of the words "prior to" the enactment date.
• ANSWER:
  The immunity clause applies retroactively only. There's no need to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawful that which everyone in the world thought was already legal before the Sturgeon decision. (Jre)

BREAKING NEWS DEVELOPMENT

A complaint was filed with California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office on September 14, 2009 by former Anti-Trust Attorney Richard I. Fine is seeking prosecution of Superior Court Judges and government officials who have participated in the receipt of illegal payments from public funds, which he estimates at approximately $300 million, without disclosure while sitting on cases involving County government. Mr. Fine, who has been sitting in solitary coercive confinement in the L. A . County Central Men's Jail, prepared the complaint using the top of his bunk bed as a desk, citing the Penal Codes from memory. After 45 years as a practicing attorney with the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. and private practice, he holds a Ph.D. in International Law.

JAILED INDEFINITELY AFTER CHALLENGING THE JUDGE

Fine was sentenced indefinitely for Civil Contempt of Court by Judge David Yaffe, whom he alleges testified in court on December 22, 2008 that he had received the illegal "benefits" (payments) from the County and had failed to disclose to litigants in Court and on his Economic Disclosure Form 700. Mr. Fine had attempted to disqualify Judge Yaffee from the case before him (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association v. County of Los Angeles.) Fine has appealed for release from jail, all the way up to the U S Ninth Circuit Court, where a hearing is expected to be scheduled; however, there is no indication it may be soon.

FULL DISCLOSURE VIDEO LINKS:"the news behind the news" ON CORRUPTION

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/540.php (10 min) Judical Watch On Court Corruption

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Programs/541.php (28:30 min) "L A Times Misses The Mark"

The Deception of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George

REBUTTAL TO L A TIMES OP-ED

By Richard I. Fine

In his September 14, 2009 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George stated that the Judicial Council of California decided to close the California Courts one day a month until June 2010. He acknowledged the hardship on Californian’s and praised the Superior Court Judges who volunteered to take a one day pay cut.

FAILED TO DISCLOSE AUTHORSHIP

However, he did not disclose that the same Judicial Council of California of which he admitted he is the Chairman, also wrote Senate Bill SBX2 11. This bill was introduced by Senate President Pro-Tem Daryl Steinberg on February 11, 2009 passed by the State Senate on February on 14th , 2009 and passed by the State Assembly on February 15, 2009 signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009 and became effective on May 21, 2009.

EXTRA JUDICIAL BENEFITS & CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
Such bill reinstated “supplemental county benefits” to Superior Court Judges in addition to their State Salary and compensation. Such supplemental County benefits have been held to be “unconstitutional” in the case of Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles 167 Cal Ap 4th 630 (2008) review denied 12/23/08. Such bill also gave retroactive immunity to the Judges and others from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action.

$30 MILLION MORE DURING FISCAL CRISIS?
By omitting to disclose Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s retroactive immunity, Chief Justice George did not inform the people that the loss to the taxpayers in L.A.County alone of these supplement payments to the Superior Court Judges in fiscal year 2009-2010 is estimated at $30 million dollars this loss is greater than the contributions of all of the Judges of one day’s pay per month over a year. In effect, under Senate Bill SBX2 11 the judges are making more money during this financial crisis while the citizens of California suffer.

DUE PROCESS DENIED
Worse yet, because of the retroactive immunity the decisions of the judges receiving county payments before 05-21-09 violated the due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and the California Constitution. The recent case of Capperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 566 US--, (2009) decided June 8, 2009 has reaffirmed a long line of Supreme Court cases since 1927 and previous common law. Such cases hold that it is a violation of due process when a Judge is in a position where there is a “potential for bias” or he is not “likely to be neutral.” Payment of money to the Judges fulfills these criteria.

BENIFITS TO FORCE JUDGES TO RECUSE FROM COUNTY CASES
Since Senate SBX2 11 does not give immunity for the current payments to the Judges the Judges receiving the current payments must recuse themselves or face criminal prosecution , civil liability and disciplinary action. Additionally, the county officials who are appropriating the funds for the payments are subject to the same sanctions as their immunity under Senate Bill SBX2 11 has also expired.

PERSONALLY AWARE OF PROBLEMS
Chief Justice George personally knew of these problems as they are issues presented in the petition for writ of Certiorari in the case of Richard I Fine v. State Bar of California, Supreme Court of California US Supreme Court Case No. 08-1573. Such petition shows that the California Supreme Court’s action to disbar Fine for bringing Federal Civil Rights cases against L.A. County and L A Superior Court Judges challenging L.A. County Payments to L A Superior Court Judges and filing other truthful documents in Courts violated the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments.

NINTH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZES CONFLICT
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals presently is also deciding the issue of whether L A Superior Courts judge David P. Yaffe should have recused himself from a case where he received payments from L A County and then presided over a contempt proceeding to enforce an order in favor in L A County and it’s co-applicant for an environmental impact report. The case is Fine v. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Case No. 09-56073.

JUDICIAL BIAS CONCERNS
In a companion case the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has refused to acknowledge the California disbarment of Fine. It has stayed any disbarment proceedings of Fine in the Ninth Circuit until a decision has been rendered in the case of Fine v. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca. The Ninth Circuit has stated that overlapping issues in the two cases occur.

$30 MILLION WINDFALL FOR JUDGES
So one day a month closure of the Courts is miniscule compared to the massive undisclosed windfall to the Judges and the denial of due process to Californians that Chief Justice George, the judicial council, the state legislature and the Governor have accomplished with Senate Bill SBX2 11.

It is no wonder that Chief Justice George omitted to mention Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s massive effect upon Californians in his Op-Ed article?


VIEW RELATED VIDEO HERE

Should Federal Judges Woehrle & Walters Have Recused Themselves? ..........On The Richard I Fine Case?

DID ILLEGAL COUNTY PAYMENTS INFLUENCE JUDGES?

Los Angeles, CA U. S. Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle and District Judge John F. Walter considered Richard I Fine's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release (09-cv-1914) and his Complaint against the State Bar of California (08-cv-2906) but according to documents filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Central District Court, Fine claims the Judges failed to disclose a serious conflict and should have disqualified themselves from the case, instead they denied his petition and his due process in their own self interest.

JUDGES RULE IN SELF INTEREST?

Fine alleges both Judges would be adversely impacted if they ruled in favor of his petition according to the motion to Recuse Judge Woehrle and the motion to recuse Judge Walter in which he describes a horror story scenario whereby legal malpractice lawsuits would result. against the Federal Judges who were former criminal defense attorneys and their law firms, comparing the circumstances as stated in his writ of Habeas Corpus petition:

"it was a violation of due process for L. A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe, who had received illegal payments from L.A. County, to preside over a case where L A County was a party, make an order in its favor and in favor of its co-applicant for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and then preside over a contempt proceeding to judge his own actions and enforce the order."

MOTIONS TO RECUSE ALLEGE:
"based upon former past practice and actions (as criminal defense attorneys) if Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter ) "had decided to grant the writ, they would open themselves up to malpractice claims from clients for who they did not raise the issue of denial of due process and transfer the case(s)"...(of clients who were convicted by L.A. Superior Court Judges who received illegal payments from the County.)............
"knowing all of this information Magistrate Judge Woehrle (and Judge Walter) were under a duty to disclose such (and recuse themselves) but did neither and elected to conceal the information."

Watch 9-1-1 call video (9 min) from Richard Fine .

Did Illegal County Payments From 1988 to 2009 Influence The Criminal Justice System ?

This Report sent to Full Disclosure from the Free Richard Fine Website

California Legislative Analysts's 2009 Report (excerpts)

Read Full Report Here

State Corrections Population in a Historical Context— Rising Caseloads and Spending

Significant Prison Growth Driven by Several Factors. As previously noted, the prison population has increased significantly over the past 20 years. The factors contributing to this increase are the (1) number of new admissions sent to prison by criminal courts, (2) amount of time served by non–lifer inmates, (3) number of inmates in prison with life sentences, (4) number of parolees returned to prison by criminal courts for new felony offenses, and (5) number of parolees returned to prison by the state’s administrative revocation process. As Figure 5 shows, most of these factors have increased significantly between 1987 and 2007.

Not Demographics or Crimes. Our analysis indicates, however, that changes in population and crime rates do not explain much if any of the growth in the number of admissions from the courts. Between 1987 and 2007, California’s population of ages 15 through 44—the age cohort with the highest risk for incarceration—grew by an average of less than 1 percent annually, which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison admissions. Moreover, the number of crimes committed actually decreased over the past two decades. Specifically, the total number of reported violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and grand theft) decreased by an average of about 1 percent annually over the past two decades.

Law Enforcement and Prosecution Help Explain the Trend. So, what does explain the increase in court admissions? Arrest and prosecution data tell at least part of the story. As shown in the figure below, despite declining crime rates, the number of adult felony arrests has remained relatively stable over the past two decades. However, the number of felony charges filed, convictions achieved, and prison sentences ordered by the courts have significantly increased during the same time period. These outcomes suggest that law enforcement has increased the percent of felony crimes resulting in arrests. In addition, prosecutors have increased the proportion of (1) arrests resulting in prosecution, (2) charges resulting in a conviction, and (3) convictions resulting in a prison sentence. As a consequence, a felony arrest is almost twice as likely to result in a prison sentence than it was two decades ago.

FULL DISCLOSURE WANTS YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT:
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR FEEDBACK AND OPINION
IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW

Monday: L A County Supervisors to Give Judges $Millions More Illegal Payments?

MYSTERIOUS

County Budget Approval Process Revealed

Los Angeles, CA This Monday, June 22, 2009 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is poised to approve untold millions of dollars of what has been ruled as illegal payments to Superior Court Judges in an obsure Agenda Item listed on Page 9 Section V as " Other Budget Items" No. 17 #7 that reads:

......"For the purposes of Government Code Section 29125, Trial Court Operations shall constitute a single budget unit within the General Fund, with separate cost centers maintained for individual court Districts and Central Court Operations. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Auditor-Controller to make appropriation adjustments between the above mentioned cost centers within the Trial Court Operations budget unit “without any monetary limitation”.

NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:
When the Full Disclosure Network requested supporting documentation for this agenda item from the Administrative Office of the Board, Amy Bennett informed us “there is no supporting documentation” and she went on to say of the authorization that “this is a boilerplate paragraph that has been used previously.”

BLANK CHECK FOR TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS?
Without supporting documentation it is difficult to determine just exactly how the County Administrative Officer and Controller will spend the $238,154,000 for Trial Court Operations as shown in Budget Summary (page 60.1) FY2009-10. This is especially curious since the 1997 enactment of the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act when the state assumed primary responsibility for funding of the trial courts, with counties providing maintenance of effort (MOE) payments.

APPROVAL OF $300 MILLION IN ILLEGAL BENEFITS TO JUDGES
This could explain how the judicial double benefits were mysteriously appropriated in the amount of approximately $300 million to L.A. Superior Court Judges over the last 20 years. A Fourth District 4th Appellate Court decision (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held that the double judicial benefits were illegal and was affirmed when the Supreme Court refused rehearing even with letters of support from such notables as major law firms, all the special interest and ethnic Law Associations and Bar Associations, the L. A . County District Attorney Steve Cooley and the Public Defender.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LETTER TO SUPREME COURT DEC. 2008
“Because the County has paid these benefits for more than twenty years, virtually all judges came onto the Superior Court expecting to receive them. Taking them away now unfairly changes the salary –and-benefits packages after the fact and indisputably will force some judges to leave the Superior Court for far more lucrative positions in the private sector to become private judges or to return to their former jobs in the public sector.”

DID L A COUNTY STONEWALL DISCOVERY?
In an April 2009 interview with Attorney Sterling Norris, Full Disclosure® learned about the circumstances of how Judicial Watch had tried to obtain discovery from the County in the Sturgeon case Here he describes how he attempted to learn who authorized the illegal judical payments in excerpts below from the cable television interview:

NORRIS: We tried and tried in discovery to seek where and when these benefits were approved. And of course, it is our contention that nobody ever did. --We asked, in our discovery, is there any meeting wherever this was discussed, by the supervisors, or in session, in secret session, even then, we were given nothing by the County in terms of discovery. The only thing they said, well, there there's a final budget. All they had titled on it was Judicial Benefits, no meetings. no approvals, just Judicial Benefits. And that was like a spike on the final budget. That was the only thing that the County gave to us for justification of where did this money came from.

COURT OF APPEAL VICTORY
And of course, the Court of Appeals, in San Diego that gave us our victory, they asked many of those questions of where did this money come from? What bill? What authorization? And of course, we hope in our new litigation to exclude the bill (SBx2 11 Judicial Benefits, described by the Judicial Council as “legislative authorization” for the double benefits that were held illegal in the case of Sturgeon vs County of L.A.)
because of the violation of the extraordinary session and several other factors……. When that bill was passed up there, the only court in this state that benefited was L.A. County. None of the rest of the judges across the state had any, anything to do with that. And the Sturgeon case only dealt with L.A. County. Almost the last statement the court made at the Court of Appeals was that we express no opinion as to other counties, as to other benefits that they may receive.

DUTTON: In that immunity legislation (SBx2 11 February ‘09) that you're challenging, did it grant immunity to others besides the judges?

NORRIS: As I read the bill, it would grant immunity to everybody involved in that, the supervisors, the county counsel, anybody else involved, in those monies.

DUTTON: You mean like the County Controller that writes the check?

NORRIS: Could very well be. And of course, that's outrageous. I mean, what you're writing a blank check to acquit all these people of wrongdoing? See this to me goes to the audacity of the judiciary. Not only to go out seeking this money, but then to put in immunity and excuse (themselves) from liability clauses into that legislation. I think it smacks of the lack of integrity and to say the judges are doing this. It's kind of like AIG, and some of these great corporations that failed us during this recession. They knew way before, and I have to believe these judges knew well before 10 years that there was a problem here. And they should not have been in that arena.

DUE PROCESS THREATENED BY PAYMENTS TO JUDGES?
On July 13, 2009 there will be a Los Angeles Superior Court hearing in the Sturgeon vs County of L. A case. At which time the Judicial Watch organization is seeking an injunction to prevent the county from making further payments to the Judges. On that day Special Appellate Court Justice James H. Richman from San Francisco will again preside, due to the fact that all the L.A. Superior Court Judges have disqualified themselves from hearing the case as they have received payments from the County that were ruled illegal.

DUE PROCESS FOR RICHARD I. FINE?

In a telephone interview from his L.A. County Central Men's Jail cell, disbarred attorney Richard I Fine told Full Disclosure " the county benefit payments to the Judges are nothing more than a pretext to influence the judges to decide cases in favor of the County." Fine, has been in jail for over 110 days for contempt of court following his attempt to disqualify Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved L. A. County, an interested party in the case.

STATE BAR, COURT & JUDGE THROW IN TOWEL?

In reference to his Motion To Set Aside the Disbarment Judgment and the Writ of Habeas Corpus (for immediate release) Mr. Fine reports that "neither the California State Bar, Judge Yaffe or the Superior Court filed opposition to the argument there has been denial to due process by sitting on cases involving the county, when they have received money from L.A. County. CV-09-1914 CW-JFW and CV 08-2906 JFW(CW).

UNEARNED BENEFITS?

Both Mr. Fine and Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch maintain that the County payments to the Judges are "unearned" payments, contending the Judges do not have a contract to perform services with the County of Los Angeles, yet they have been paid. According to Fine, the judicial payments are in violation of Federal Mail Fraud Law, 18 USC 1341, 1343, 1346 covering the intangible right to receive honest services.

THE COUNTY & THE STATE CONSTITUTION

Article 6 Section 19 and 20 of the California Constitution states that the Legislature shall set the compensation and retirement benefits for the judges. Mr. Richard I Fine told Full Disclosure he is waiting to see if the County is going to authorize the Chief Executive Officer and the Controller to set the compensation for Judicial Benefits in Los Angeles County.

COERCIVE CONFINEMENT:

When asked why he has not been released from jail on a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Fine responded: "I am still sitting here because the Magistrate Judge has violated Federal Law 28 us 2243 that says when we filed our Writ, it should have issued, but she failed to do so. "

Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption: Powerful Friends Support Judges Bid To Keep Double Benefits (Video 7 min)

Los Angeles, CA The Full Disclosure Network® presents a seven minute preview video featuring excerpts from Part 3 and 4 from an on going series entitled “Judicial Benefits & Court Corruption.” These two new episodes feature Sterling Norris, Judicial Watch attorney, whose 2008 successful lawsuit found the L.A. County’s payments of double benefits to Judges was unlawful. (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles).

The San Diego Appellate Court decision in favor of the Judicial Watch lawsuit was upheld when the Supreme Court refused to hear it. However, in this series Norris describes the behind the scenes court maneuvers conducted by the California Judiciary that is apparently determined to retain the illegal benefits, while serving as employees of the State of California.

Here are few of the points made by Norris in the two new episodes:

• Failure of California Judges to disclose receipt of payments from counties either to the parties involved in lawsuits or on their economic interest disclosures.


• In the last ten years each of the 600 Judges in L.A. have received $350,000 in illegal payments.


• L.A. Superior Court hired a lobbyist for $60,000 to sponsor SBX211 legislation. Has the Superior Court hired lobbyists before?


• SBX211 (part of the Feb. 2009 Budget Bill) legalized retroactively the judicial double benefits and


• SBX211 provided retroactive criminal and liability immunity from prosecution to the Judges and County officials involved in the payments of public money. Norris asks why? They must have thought crimes were involved.


• Have the L. A. Superior Court ever intervened in any other lawsuit, as they have with this issue of double benefits?


• Judicial mind-set and integrity questioned as the battle over wages escalated.


• Legal and law enforcement forces step forward to fight for judicial double benefits, ignore conflict and judicial bias potential


• Major forces on record defending double benefits to Judges: L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley, County Public Defender, All Bar Associations, big law firms who appear before the Judges. Norris asks, did the Court stop to think about a resulting bias and prejudice?

FISCAL CRISIS: Illegal Payments Create Law For Judicial Criminal & Liability Immunity: Nominees For U S Supreme Court To Be Impacted?

STERLING NORRIS
Judicial Watch Attorney (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles)

Los Angeles, CA While counties, cities and the entire state are on the brink of financial collapse all California Superior Court Judges are fighting hard, in court and in the State Legislature, to keep the illegal payments made to them by county governments. The Judicial Watch organization successfully challenged those payments made to Judges in L A County, where over the past decade it has been estimated that L.A. Judges have received up to $300 million dollars. A Fourth District Appellate Court decision in October 2008 (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) held those payments to the Judges were indeed unlawful. This action prompted the Judges to fight back.


RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned money. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into the State Budget legislation SBX 211, without public debate or awareness. This provision granted retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to all California Judges and County officials who received or made those illegal payments of public money. Depending on who you talk to the payments are referred to as "unearned benefits" or "Judicial Benefits".

NON DISCLOSURE FOR JUDGES?
Full Disclosure Network ® inteviewed Judicial Watch attorney Sterling Norris in April 2009 as part of an on going "special series" entitled Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption. We asked Norris what motivated the California Judicial Council to change the law giving retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution to the Judges and the Counties? His response was:

"they would not have sponsored the legislation unless they really felt the Judges needed immunity from criminal prosecution and liability".

Ironically, Richard I. Fine, a former prominent anti-trust attorney is still sitting in the Los Angeles County Central Men's Jail, in isolation, for more than 70 days. He was held in contempt of court, after he attempted to disqualify Superior Court Judge David Yaffe from sitting on a case that involved the County of Los Angeles. According to Fine , Yaffe failed to disclose to the parties in the case (Marina Strand Colony II Homeowners Association vs County of Los Angeles) that he had been receiving $46,000, on top of his State salary, from the County for years. Yaffe recently defended the practice of "coercive confinement" in contempt cases in response to a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Immediate Release filed by Fine in the Federal Court on March 29, 2009.

QUOTES ON NON-DISCLOSURE & PROSECUTION
Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to Judges and their failure to disclose.

• "There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A. , there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it....""
  
• "$46,000 each year is not a small amount, many people don't make that much all year and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation".
  
• "If (the Judges) are on the up and up, you go get a declaratory judgment (in court) saying, in spite of court consolidation, we are entitled to the money"
  
• "We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively"


• "There is a criminal doctrine of law that if you received money you are not entitled to, and you keep it, that is considered theft"
  

IMPACT ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS?
Without immunity for criminal acts, a complicating factor associated with the illegal payments to Judges, is that a number of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges have been appointed to higher courts during the past two decades. They now sit on the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court. The question is, does the fact they have accepted unearned money from other than their employer disqualify them from higher appointments? In his request for investigation and complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice Richard I. Fine points to both Appellate and Supreme Court Justices who have received illegal payments from the County and who have been granted criminal immunity.

JUDICIAL ETHICS AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CARLOS R. MORENO

The California Constitution (Sec. 17, 19, 20) states that Judges may not receive money from other parties than their employer, the State of California, and the Legislature has the sole responsibility for setting compensation and retirement benefits. On page 4 of the Fine request for investigation he names California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, who has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court by President Obama.

In a telephone interview on Friday, May 15, 2009 from his jail cell, Mr. Fine expressed concern about the possible U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Justice Moreno because he had not recused himself from two critical cases involving the SBX2 11 and the controversial retroactive criminal imnunity issue. First, by not recusing himself in the disbarrment case of Fine who had raised the illegal payments to Judges and second, on the Writ of Habeas Corpus, where Fine was seeking immediate release from L.A. County Jail for contempt of Court. In both instances Fine maintains that Justice Moreno had a personal conflict and that two Federal Judges (George Wu and Dale Fischer) recused themselves from the Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Richard Fine as they had been Superior Court Judges in Los Angeles and had received illegal payments from the County and retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution.


JULY 2nd COURT HEARING IN L.A.
The on-going controversy over the State's fiscal crisis, Judicial benefits and appointments is playing out in yet another court hearing on July 2, 2009 when San Francisco Appellate Court Justice James A. Richman will preside in an L A Superior Court to rule on the Judicial Watch motion for injunctive relief, to prohibit the county from making futher illegal payments to the Judges. At that time Sterling Norris will have an opportunity to raise thie issue of Constitutionality of SBX2 11 granting Judges retroactive immuity for liability and criminal acts without public discussion or debate.

FISCAL CRISIS & WHO PAYS THE BIG LAW FIRMS ?
The Judical Watch organization, has been been faced with formidable opposition from County of Los Angeles and their private lawfirm Jones-Day and the Superior Court of Los Angeles who retained Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who successfully obtained "Intervenor" status in the case. The "unearned benefits" going to the Judges, not to the public, raises the issue who will pay the big law firms? Will it be the taxpayers who pay or the Judges who personally benefit from the illegal payments? No matter who wins and who pays, this legal battle is going to cost a lot of money.


JUDGES ASSN. DECLINE INTERVIEW

The Full Disclosure® Host Leslie Dutton contacted Judge Mary Wiss, president of the California Judges Association for an interview for this two-part interview with Sterling Norris, Judge Wiss referred us to their lobbyist, Mr. Mike Beliote, who declined an interview saying "the Judges have decided not to be interviewed on this subject" The Full Disclosure series is to be released to 40 cable systems and on the Internet in June 2009. This is part three and four of the on-going series. # # # #

“COERCIVE CONFINEMENT” Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption: Video Preview of Series (10 min)

L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffe

Los Angeles, CA. Why was prominent anti-trust attorney Richard I. Fine sentenced to “coercive confinement” in the L.A. Central Men’s Jail for an indefinite period of time? It has been sixty days in solitary confinement and is growing each day. On May 1, 2009 Fine and his supporters learned the reasons why. In a ordered response to his Writ of Habeas Corpus and request for immediate release. A Ventura, California law firm representing the Los Angeles Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe, filed a response and revealed the intent of the confinement was to “coerce” Fine into submission.

Full Disclosure Network® presents a ten minute preview from a two-part series covering this extraordinary case where Richard I. Fine and others discuss the circumstances and implications of Los Angeles Superior Court Judges, including Judge David Yaffe, of taking illegal payments from Los Angeles County while sitting in judgment on cases where the county is a party. Having raised the issue of Judicial corruption since 1999, Fine maintains that over a period from 2005 through 2008 only two cases have been decided against the County by a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge.

JUDGE YAFFE'S RESPONSE

Here is a quote from the Court Ordered response filed by the Ventura, California law firm of Kevin M. McCormick (BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM) hired by L. A. County Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe where they are opposing the release of Richard I Fine from solitary “coercive confinement”.

“The use of COERCIVE CONFINEMENT resulting from civil contempt has been approved and found appropriate by the United States Supreme Court, federal district and appellate courts and California state courts, regarding the right of a civil judgment creditor to pursue and of a trial court to impose for purposes of an individual’s compliance with a valid court order.”


JUDICIAL BENEFITS AT HEART OF CONROVERSY

This is an on-going series covering the issue judicial benefits and court corruption. Part Three and Four feature a one-hour interview with Judicial Watch organization and former prominent L. A. Deputy District Attorney, Sterling Norris, whose landmark case (Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles) found that payments made to Superior Court Judges from the Counties was illegal. Judicial Watch has vowed to challenge the legislation enacted in February 2009 as part of the California budget bill SBX 211 that provided retroactive immunity from prosecution for all state judges and county officials who received or approved the illegal payments since 1988.

The entire series is featured on 40 cable systems and the Full Disclosure Network website.