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 by the Supreme Court, when a re-hearing was denied. 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.
Comments to date: 42. This is page 1 of 5.
Truth Seeker Location unknown
Posted: 09:22 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: 08:00 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.
Justice NorCal
Posted: 12:21 am [PST] on December 27 2009
Another example of questionable law enforcement..go to JuryUninformed.blogspot.com. Read about special treatment apparently affored the former mayor/retired county sheriff deputy's, known, troubled son in Pleasant Hill.
Jun Kim Michigan
Posted: 01:10 am [PST] on December 20 2009
It is crystal clear, Subject Judge’s fraud, directly related to misconduct order that “no evidence”; I believe that lobbyist beyond this case with political party.
How possible no evidence; Respondents state that “ He has never been moved from the Pending to the Waiting List” “ I have been carrying him on our Pending List every month since December 2005”.
U.S Suprem court refused of the review. How posible justice please let me know
H
Joe Banana so. cal
Posted: 05:03 am [PST] on November 15 2009
How does the reversal in the Caperton vs Massey ruling effect this situation?
joebanana so. cal
Posted: 05:42 pm [PST] on October 19 2009
It's the Sheriffs duty to arrest anyone, and everyone involved in this criminality. Lee Baca is ignoring this proven criminal activity, he needs to man up, and do his job. What the hell is with "law enforcement", they're so used to busting pot smokers, that real criminals scare them? Baca aint a "sheriff", he's a sissy.
pilgrim1776 michigan 48375
Posted: 12:26 pm [PST] on October 01 2009
The entire system is corrupt and needs to be removed. However, the masses-r-asses have been so dumbed-down that unless they can clear their minds to see what is wrong, nothing will be done.
Eve Watson San Diego, CA
Posted: 09:44 pm [PST] on September 29 2009
We don't have to wonder what's wrong with the USA: greed, at every level. Get mine while I can and to ____ with the everyone else.
We get what we deserve, unfortunately.
Elizabeth Wallace Oregon
Posted: 08:24 am [PST] on September 15 2009
excellent and it took J.A.I.L. to get me to investigate this and find you I would like a copy of this in full to present to the Oregon groups please contact me firefly@ados.net
sally Fleer thousand oaks
Posted: 06:51 am [PST] on September 15 2009
Once again. Who ido we trrus?????
Not many. Cheating looks like the norm these days.