Attorney General Jerry Brown, former California Governor will seek re-election for Governor in the year 2010. He has yet to indict or investigate any public official in the State of California.
We citizens in the State of California and the nation are calling upon Jerry Brown to investigate the case involving Attorney Richard Fine.
Fine is being held in the Los Angeles County Jail on civil contempt charges because he has exposed the entire state of California. Attorney Fine complained about the extra benefits that the state judges were receiving from the various Counties in the state of California.
The extra benefit's were being given to the judges in addition to what the state is paying them, these extra benefits were ruled to be unconstitutional in the appeals court involving the Sturgeons case; however, the unconstitutionality was challenged by the California Legislators who later created an emergency bill SBX2-11, which gave retroactive immunity to the judges and their cohorts for taking these illegal benefits.
The citizens are being settled with tainted decisions, based upon the fact that their were financial conflicts of interest, in the years of 2005 through 2007. No
judge has ever ruled against the counties whenever the county was a defendant in a case.
You have the County of Los Angeles giving twenty-one million a year to the judges despite the fact that services are being cut and they have an unemployment rate of over 11%
. Most importantly, you have a situation whereby it says that
"Whenever elected officials are exposed, they can simply go to the state legislator's and created an emergency bill giving retroactive immunity."
The State of California has the largest court system, particularly in Los Angeles County. If California goes, there goes the nations.
We, the citizens, seek indictments, resignations and restoration of Attorney Richard Fine. If a International attorney can be violated in this manner, the question is, what is happening to the average citizens?
The nation is seeing a serious abuse of power being imposed by the judiciary against Attorney Fine, all in an effort to silence him.
The nation is watching, talking and ready to go to Washington DC, as this is outrageous conduct and why should Attorney Fine sit in jail on an illegal order, an illegal order based upon the fact that judge David Yaffy and his cohorts were being paid by the Los Angeles County, the County was a defendant in the case, Fine challenged the benefits and attempted on many occasions to rescued the judges, they refused, throw the case and now they are attempting to make Fine pay court fee's to the very county that is paying these judges extra benefits.
Lastly, the people of this nation have concluded that these extra benefits have had adverse effects upon cases, therefore, many cases should be revisited based upon financial conflicts of interest, non-disclosure this is something that immunity didn't give them Non-Disclosure and intrinsic fraud. We also believe that this is a practice and pattern throughout the nation.
Therefore, California must set the stage and began to fix our judiciary, we have also concluded that our three branches of Government have become one and they all have admitted that the state is all corrupted based upon SBX2-11http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HLbdnzDvp8&feature=channel Fine 911 Call from JailA Copy of the SB-11 Emergency Bill Everyone, please leave a comment on this, as all the State and National officials read this paper. Please mention Attorney Fine. Capitol and California
- Dan Walters Comments
Dan Walters: L. A. judges get extra payPublished: Wednesday, Mar. 4, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 3A
California's Superior Court judges are paid $178,789 a year and have generous medical and retirement benefits %u2013 up to 75 percent of their salary. Los Angeles County's judges fare even better because the county pumps another $47,726 into their compensation.
It's been happening for years, but it's also been illegal for years, a state appellate court ruled last October in a lawsuit brought by Harold Sturgeon.
Sturgeon alleged the extra pay violated a section of the state constitution saying the Legislature sets judicial compensation, aimed at preventing judges from being bribed by local officials. A local judge ruled %u2013 not surprisingly %u2013 that Sturgeon's case was without merit. The appellate court overruled him.
That created a dilemma. Not only would the county have to stop paying the extra money, but conceivably county supervisors, who approved the payments, could be liable for illegal disbursement of public funds.
The solution was a quick legislative fix. One of the many "trailer bills" in last month's multibillion-dollar budget package, called "Sturgeon fix" in legislative documents, authorizes Los Angeles and other counties to provide extra payments and protects county officials from liability.
It's another illustration of how state budget bills have become vehicles for matters that have nothing to do with the budget but are slipped through without public airing. Indeed, the package was enacted while most of California's 38 million residents were still sound asleep early one Thursday morning.
One wonders how Los Angeles County's taxpayers would have reacted had they known that the Legislature was approving extra judicial payments while the county's supervisors are staring at a $200 million budget deficit and contemplating steep cuts in services, especially those to the poor and unemployed, in a county with a jobless rate of nearly 11 percent.
The biggest extra pops for the judges are the same "Megaflex" benefits, 19 percent of their salaries, that county employees get, even though judges are now considered state employees. That's $33,970 per judge.
It is supposed to be used to buy medical, dental and disability coverage, but anything not spent for those benefits can be taken as extra taxable income. And as state employees, L.A.'s judges already are supplied with health benefits from another source.
In addition, each judge gets a $6,876 "professional development allowance," which can be spent on almost anything related to the job, such as attendance at judicial conventions. Finally, each judge gets up to $6,880 for a private retirement plan over and above the ordinary pension system.
Los Angeles County has 439 Superior Court judgeships, so those extra payments amount to about $21 million a year, more than 10 percent of its deficit. County officials contend the extra compensation is needed to attract qualified judicial candidates. That's always the excuse when someone gets an extra bite of the public apple.
SB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sbx2_11&sess=CUR&house=B&author=steinberg
SB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits.
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribe
compensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizes
a county to deem judges and court employees as county employees for
purposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were held
unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of
the Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of
This bill would provide that judges who received supplemental
judicial benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July
1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the
county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms and
conditions as were in effect on that date. The bill would authorize a
county to terminate its obligation to provide benefits upon
providing 180 days' written notice to the Administrative Director of
the Courts and the impacted judges, but that termination would not be
effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that
judge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election
of the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also would
authorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges in
that county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to
the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly
Committee on Budget, and both the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Judiciary on or before December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide
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.
This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shall
require the Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for the
purpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate the state or the
Judicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by the
county, city and county, or the court.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS
The Legislature finds and declares all of the
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision of
the Court of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167
Cal.App.4th 630, regarding county-provided benefits for judges.
(b) These county-provided benefits were considered by the
Legislature in enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act
of 1997, in which counties could receive a reduction in the county's
maintenance of effort obligations if counties elected to provide
benefits pursuant to paragraph (l) of subdivision (c) of Section
77201 of the Government Code for trial court judges of that county.
(c) Numerous counties and courts established local or court
supplemental benefits to retain qualified applicants for judicial
office, and trial court judges relied upon the existence of these
longstanding supplemental benefits provided by the counties or the
court.SEC. 2. Section 68220
is added to the Government Code, to read:
68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplemental
judicial benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as of
July 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from
the county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms and
conditions as were in effect on that date.
(b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide benefits
under this section upon providing the Administrative Director of the
Courts and the impacted judges with 180 days' written notice. The
termination shall not be effective as to any judge during his or her
current term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in that
court or, at the election of the county, when that judge leaves
office. The county is also authorized to elect to provide benefits
for all judges in the county.SEC. 3. Section 68221
is added to the Government Code, to read:
68221. To clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies in terms with
regard to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, the
following shall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222,
(a) "Benefits" and "benefit" shall include federally regulated
benefits, as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensation
plan benefits, such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section
71628, and may also include professional development allowances.
(b) "Salary" and "compensation" shall have the meaning as set
forth in Section 1241.SEC. 4. Section 68222
is added to the Government Code, to read:
68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council to
increase funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial
benefits or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay for
benefits previously provided by the county, city and county, or the
SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, 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 this act on the
ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.
SEC. 6. The Judicial Council shall report to the Senate Committee
on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and
both the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary on or before
December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies.
SEC. 7. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision
of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application.