Petition to Recall Six California Supreme Court Justices and L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffey

The undersigned People of California, we herein petition the Honorable members of the California Legislature to consider the grave allegations made herein, to carefully review the information hereinafter provided (including internet links tosupporting documents) and to act on such information, as provided in Article IV, Section 18(b),  of the California Constitution, as to the impeachment of "state officers elected on a statewide basis...(who) are subject to impeachment for misconduct in office".  Article VI, Section 16 of the California Constitution provides:(a) Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected at large                   Article 1 of the California Constitution provides:SEC. 3.  (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.
   (b) (1) The people have the right of access to information
concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
   (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access.  A statute, court rule,
or other authority adopted after the effective date of this
subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with
findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and
the need for protecting that interest.Article II, Section 1 of the California Constitution:"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."     Pursuant to Article IV, Section 18, the People of the Stateof California may petition the California Legislature to draftarticles of impeachment and to conduct a trial in the matter:        SEC. 18.  (a) The Assembly has the sole power of impeachment.
Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate.  A person may not be
convicted unless, by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two thirds
of the membership of the Senate concurs.
   (b) State officers elected on a statewide basis, members of the
State Board of Equalization, and judges of state courts are subject
to impeachment for misconduct in office.  Judgment may extend only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the State, but the person convicted or acquitted remains subject to criminal punishment according to law.    Summary of Facts Which Support Allegations that Six California Supreme Court Justices have, at a minimum, Violated the Public Trust, Violated their Oaths of  Office,  Violated the California Code of Judicial Ethics and are Guilty of Malfeasance in Office.Petitioner Asserts that such Misconduct Constitutes Impeachable Offenses under Article IV, Section 18 of the California Constitution. Let it be known that this issue of the extra pay was mentioned in 2001 by Shirley Moore, then Attorney Richard  Fine and finally years later by Sturgeons . 

1. 

On October 10, 2008, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,

held that the County of Los Angeles may not provide Superior Court judges

in that county additional compensation over and above that provided by the

Legislature. That decision, Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles ("Sturgeon")

was based on Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution, which

provides that "the Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of

courts of record."

The Court also held that Government Code Section 53200.3 violated the rule against delegation of authority as set forth in Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal. 2d 371 (1969).   In making it's determination, the Court relied on a prior attorney general opinion, which concluded that the current version of Section 53200.3 was unconstitutional. http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2008/sturgeon-v-losangeles-ruling.pdf

2. 

The County of Los Angeles petitioned the California Supreme Court

for review of the "Sturgeon" decision. The record shows that the California

Supreme Court denied review of that decision on December 23, 2008.

Supreme Court Denies Review in

Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles

Case Concerns County-Paid Benefits for Trial Court Judges

San Francisco%u2014The California Supreme Court today denied

review in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (S168408), 167

Cal. App.4th 630, in which the Court of Appeal held that various

benefits paid by the County of Los Angeles to its Superior Court

judges violate article VI, section 19, of the state Constitution.

That provision states:

"The Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts

of record." There were no votes to grant review of the Court of

Appeal s decision in this matter.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/MA-50-08.PDF

I note that the following language, usually found at the bottom of  the

page of rulings or announcements published by the California Supreme

Court, is absent from the Courts ruling denying review of the "Sturgeon"

decision.

The Judicial Council is the policymaking body of the California courts,

the largest court system in the nation. Under the leadership of the Chief

Justice and in accordance with the California Constitution, the council

is responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and

accessible administration of justice. The Administrative Office of the

Courts carries out the official actions of the council and promotes

leadership and excellence in court administration.

Supreme Court Denies Review of Ruling Tossing Judges Benefits

Metropolitan News Enterprise                          December 24, 2008

Information provided at the link below indicates that Justice

Kathryn M. Werdeger did not participate in the decision

referred to above. 

"Although further proceedings must take place before the benefits are

discontinued and legislative action remains a possibility, two judges

have already identified the ruling as a factor in their decisions to leave

the court, and others are reported to be considering leaving as well."

I assert that it is important to note that the seasoned jurists

interviewed by the Met News in the above quoted article did

not sound hopeful after learning that the California Supreme

Court had denied review of the 'Sturgeon" decision. In other

words, the anticipation of possible legislative action in this

matter was not a first response from the affected jurists. 

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/stur122408.htm

From the San Fernando Business Journal Online:"In one of 2008s final actions, the California Supreme Court upheld the decision to strip away the countys generous benefit offerings."  http://www.sfvbj.com/archive_article.asp?aID=74425659.6239435.1739777.215736.2200826.305&aID2=133820  "The Decision Whether to Accept a Case"Information provided at the link below describes the process which normally occurs in the California Supreme Court as toaccepting a case for review. (see page 20) "The concurrenceof at least four justices is needed for a decision to review a case or take other action."http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/2007_Supreme_Court_Booklet.pdfArticle VI of the California Constitution, Section 12 provides:(a) The Supreme Court may, before decision, transfer to itselfa cause in a Court of appeal. It may, before decision, transfer a cause from itself to a court of appeal or from one court of appealor division to another. The court to which a cause is transferredhas jurisdiction.(b) The Supreme Court may review the decision of a court of appeal in any cause.

3. 

The record will show that four of the six California Supreme Court

Justices who denied review of the "Sturgeon" decision had been recipients

of  the "extra benefits" (county benefits) referred to in that decision. 

Although the "Sturgeon" decision referred to a case brought by Los

Angeles County, the ruling was based on state law;  thus, the "Sturgeon"

decision would also apply to the "extra county benefits" which  the

following jurists received from counties other than Los Angeles. It

is my understanding that the only counties in the State of California

which have not provided "extra benefits" to their judges are:

Mendocino, San Francisco and Yolo.

Petitioner asserts that when the "Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles"

decision came up for review in the California Supreme Court in December

2008, the four (4) jurists whose names are listed below, had a duty to recuse

themselves from participation in any ruling(s) related to that matter due

to a conflict of interest. Petitioner contends that since Justices Moreno,

Kennard, Chin and Corrigan had, at one point in their careers, received 

benefits which a California Appellate Court had determined were

unconstitutional, they could no longer be impartial as to whether or not

the "Sturgeon"decision should or should not be reviewed in the California

Supreme Court.

The Media Advisory published by the Supreme Court as to the

ruling not to review the "Sturgeon" decision did not indicate

the names of the Justices involved in that decision.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/MA-50-08.PDF

Based upon the information found at the first link below, indicating

that Justice Werdeger was not present for that decision, and that

"The concurrence of at least four justices is needed for a decision to review

a case or take other action" (see link after next), one can reasonably infer 

that all four, or at least two of the jurists named below concurred to

deny review of  the "Sturgeon" decision.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/stur122408.htm

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/2007_Supreme_Court_Booklet.pdf

~Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno

Information provided at the following link indicates that Justice 

Moreno was previously a judge in Los Angeles County during

the period when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 

provided it's judges with benefits which the "Sturgeon" decision

deemed were unconstitutional.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/moreno.htm

~Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard

Information provided at the following link indicates that Justice

Kennard was previously a judge in Los Angeles County during

the period when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 

provided it's judges with benefits which the "Sturgeon" decision

deemed were unconstitutional.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/kennard.htm

~ Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan

Information provided at the following link indicates that during the

years 1991-1994, Justice Corrigan was a Superior Court Judge

in Alameda County. To the best of my information and belief, I

contend that Justice Corrigan received "extra benefits" from

Alameda County during the period noted above; benefits which

the "Sturgeon" decision deemed were unconstitutional. 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/corrigan.htm

~Associate Justice Ming W. Chin

Information found at the link below indicates that Justice

Ming was a Superior Court Judge in Alameda County prior

to 1994. To the best of my information and belief, I contend

that Justice Ming received "extra benefits" from Alameda

County during the time he was a Superior Court judge, and

that the "Sturgeon" decision deemed such benefits unconstitutional. 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/chin.htm

  

In September 2007, Chief Justice Ronald M. George announced

the formation of a Commission for Impartial Courts.The steering

committee for the commission is headed by Supreme Court Associate

Justice Ming W. Chin. I include this information as it directly relates

to core issues raised herein; ie.., judicial impartiality, the rule of law,

and public confidence in the courts.

Following is an excerpt from the opening remarks Justice Chin made

at the Initial Meeting for the Commission for Impartial Courts,

September 10, 2007:

As the Chief Justice said in announcing the Commission's creation:

"It is essential that we make every effort to avoid politicizing the

judiciary so that public confidence in the quality, impartiality, and

accountability of judges is protected and maintained." The

Commission%u2019s creation reflects widespread concern that unless

we exercise leadership in addressing the contemporary challenges

to non-partisan and impartial judiciaries, the very legitimacy of

California%u2019s court system may be in jeopardy. As the U.S. Supreme

Court has noted, "[t]he legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately

depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship."

Justice Anthony Kennedy put it this way in explaining why "judicial

independence is a foundation" of "the Rule of Law": "The law

commands allegiance only if it commands respect. It commands

respect only if the public thinks the judges are neutral." "Judges

must be independent not so they can do as they choose, [but] so

they can do as they must."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/documents/cic_opening_remarks_chin_091007.pdf

4. 

The Justices of the California Supreme Court are bound by their Oath of Office,

identified in Article XX, Section 3 of the California Constitution:

SEC. 3.  Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and
employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior
officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they
enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

       "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
     and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
     tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
     and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
     Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
     State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without
     any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
     well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about
     to enter.
       "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate,
     nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other-
     wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the
     United States or of the State of California by force or violence
     or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately
     preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not
     been a member of any party or organization, political or other-
     wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the
     United States or of the State of California by force or violence
     or other unlawful means except as follows:
     ________________________________________________________________

         (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions")
     and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________

     ________________________________ I will not advocate nor become
             (name of office)
     a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise,
     that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United
     States or of the State of California by force or violence or
     other unlawful means."

   And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a
qualification for any public office or employment.
   "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and

employee of the State, including the University of California,

every county, city and county, district, and authority,

including any department, division, bureau, board, commission,

agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

5.

Preamble to the California Code of Judicial Ethics

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent,

fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that

govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of

justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to this code are the precepts that

judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the

judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain

confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law

for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible member of government

under the rule of law.                       (emphasis added)

The Code of Judicial Ethics ("Code") establishes standards for ethical conduct

of judges on and off the bench and for candidates for judicial office. The Code

consists of broad declarations called Canons, with subparts, and a Terminology

section. Following each Canon is a Commentary section prepared by the Supreme

Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The Commentary, by

explanation and example, provides guidance as to the purpose and meaning of the

Canons. The Commentary does not constitute additional rules and should not be

so construed. All members of the judiciary must comply with the Code.

Compliance is required to preserve the integrity of the bench and to

ensure the confidence of  the public.            (emphasis added)

The Canons should be read together as a whole, and each provision should be

construed in context and consistent with every other provision. They are to be

applied in conformance with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court

rules, and decisional law. Nothing in the Code shall either impair the essential

independence of judges in making judicial decisions or provide a separate

basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution.

The Code governs the conduct of judges and judicial candidates* and is

binding upon them. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree

of discipline to be imposed, requires a reasoned application of the text and

consideration of such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether

there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity

on others or on the judicial system.       (emphasis added)

THE CANONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF ETHICS:

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of

the judiciary.

Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all of the judges activities.

Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially

and diligently.

Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judges quasi-judicial and

extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial

obligations.

Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate

 political activity.

Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

6.

On February 11, 2009, a bill known as SB 11xx  was introduced the California

Legislature. This bill is sometimes  referred to as SB 11 or  SB x2  11. The "xx"

or "x2" established it as a bill which was included in the "Second Extraordinary

Session" of the California Legislature. Information found at the link below indicates

that the "Source" of the bill was the Administrative Office of the Courts.    

As used herein, SB 11  also means SBx2 11  OR  SBxx 11 OR  SB 11XX 

 Bill No:  SB 11XX
          Author:   Steinberg (D)
          Amended:  2/14/09
          Vote:     21           
          WITHOUT REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE 

           SUBJECT :    Budget Act of 2008:  judicial benefits

          SOURCE :     Administrative Office of the Courts

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx2_11_cfa_20090214_174659_sen_floor.html

7.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George is both the Chief Justice of the

California Supreme Court and Chairman of the California Judicial

Council. William C. Vickrey is the Secretary of the Judicial Council as well

as the Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts

("AOC"). The AOC is the Administrative arm of the Judicial Council.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Marvin R. Baxter is also a member

of the Judicial Council.

Petitioner asserts that when Chief Justice Ronald M. George assumes his role

as Chairman of the Judicial Council, he maintains his title and authority as the

California Supreme Court Chief Justice. Thus, the Chief Justice leaves his

indelible imprint on all aspects of this event.

Petitioner asserts that evidence exists which indicates that Chief

Justice Ronald M. George used his position as Chief Justice of the

California Supreme Court, and as Chair of the California Judicial

Council, to influence the California Legislature through the AOC,

to initiate and pass the legislation known as SB 11xx  in  an

"Extraordinary Session" of the Legislature, without public scrutiny. 

The legislative history for SB 11xx indicates that the bill was introduced in

the Senate on February 11, 2009. SB 11xx was amended and passed in the

Senate on February 14, 2009. On February 15, 2009, SB 11xx was passed

in the Assembly. On February 20, 2009, SB 11xx was approved by the

Governor. SB 11xx  is now operative and has restored  the "extra judicial

benefits" which a California Appellate Court deemed were unconstitutional.

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA

DESERVED NOTICE OF THIS MATTER. WHAT THEY GOT

INSTEAD, WAS A SHOCKING DISPLAY OF DELIBERATE

INDIFFERENCE TO THEIR RIGHTS, FROM THOSE THEY

HAVE ELECTED.

SEE: "Extraordinary Sessions", starting on page 9, for the text below:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pdf/Ch_06_CaLegi06.pdf

"The Constitution provides that the Governor may call the Legislature

into special session by proclamation. The proclamation contains

certain subjects, and the Legislature's consideration is limited to

the subjects specified, but it may provide for the expenses and other

matters incidental to the session."

"With respect to the question of what measures may be considered

under an item of the Governor's Proclamation convening the

Legislature in extraordinary session, the California Supreme

Court has stated as follows:"     (emphasis added)

``. . . The duty of the Legislature in special session to

confine itself to the subject matter of the call is of course

mandatory.. It has no power to legislate on any subject not

specified in the proclamation

. . . . But when the Governor has submitted a subject to the Legislature,

the designation of that subject opens for legislative consideration

matters relating to, germane to and having a natural connection

with the subject proper. . . . Any matter of restriction or limitation

becomes advisory or recommendatory only and not binding on

the Legislature. . . .''

The following links provides information as to the content

of Governor Schwarzenegger's December 2008 proclamation.

Petitioner asserts  that the statements, released in early and

mid December,  reveal on their face that the economic stress

in our state was severe, yet Chief Justice Ronald George

et al., including the members of  the Judicial Council,  

apparently decided that the Superior Court judges in the

Golden State, already the highest paid Superior Court

judges in the Nation, deserved more.

http://gov.ca.gov/proclamation/11164

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/proclamation/11308/

Petitioner vigorously asserts that the arguments  that:

"We will lose a lot of good judges if we lose the benefits" or,

"We need those benefits in order to attract and keep high

quality judges, is unfounded, self serving and patently

absurd.  Hundreds of thousands of people in this

state  have lost their homes and their jobs and

many have never even had an income close to 

the amount that LA County has been dishing

up to over 400 jurists as "extra benefits."

WE THE PEOPLE assert that elected officials, in

service to their community, ought to consider themselves

fortunate to have an income close to $200k per year.

WE THE PEOPLE are prepared to prove, in shocking

detail,  that  the result of  years and years of "extra benefits"

for judges in the Los Angeles Superior Court system has

in fact, created a state of tremendous injustice for the

PEOPLE whom government is here to serve.

Petitioner asserts that the aforesaid participation by Chief Justice Ronald 

George and five other Supreme Court Justices, who appear to have been

complicit in influencing, even if only through silence, the passage of SB 11xx,

was unethical on its face and constitutes misconduct warranting impeachment.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. Judges are not above the law.  Misuse

of authority catches up to everyone responsible...eventually. Alleged misuse of

authority now shadows six justices of the California Supreme Court and this

issue will only disappear when it is confronted head on. WE THE PEOPLE

respectfully demand  the impeachment of the justices herein named, or request

their voluntary resignations.

Malfeasance in Office

Malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity%u2014under the color of law. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties.   Wikipedia® Petitioner asserts that at a minimum, the failure of Justices Moreno, Kennard, Chin and Corrigan to recuse themselves due to conflicts of interest in the "Sturgeon" case constitutes an ommission on the part of each.  As to Chief Justice George and Justice Baxter, their obvious participation, as members of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL, in advancingan agenda to fast track legislation which illegally benefited jurists, and isa violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, contitutes overt acts. All these acts were done under color of law.  Petitioner asserts that when those in high places of public trust make a conscious choice to  defeatintegrity, others will expect them to do it again, thereby interfereing with the performance of one's official duties.

"Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do."   Wikipedia®

%u2014Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).

In the number 50 Media Advisory entitled:

"Supreme Court Denies Review in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles"

the following statement appears:

That provision states: "The Legislature shall prescribe compensation

for judges of courts of record."      (emphasis in original) 

Petitioner asserts that by denying revew of Sturgeon v. County of

Los Angeles, and by intentionally emphasizing the word Legislature 

in its ruling, the Court clearly agreed with the decision. Six members

of the California Supreme Court must be held accountable for what 

followed in the weeks and months after they made that decision.

"Sturgeon" caused nothing short of a tidal wave among not only

legal professionals, the judges who were actively benefitting from

the unconstitutional payments, but countless numbers of average

people from across the state who have been impacted by a court

system  that has abandoned and betrayed them.  It is essential

for the Court to understand the that THE PEOPLE will  not allow

the unconstitutional payments to continue.

Petitioner asserts that it is reasonable to conclude that considerable

discussion took place at the Supreme Court's Weekly Conference

regarding action in this matter. Due to the fact that four of the six

justices named in this petition had been recipients of the

"unconstitutional benefits, petitioner asserts that the final outcome

of this situation could reasonably be interpreted as an agreement between

six justices to "disappear" a looming problem by abandoning the rule of law

to save their own reputations. 

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence

of the judiciary.

1. Petitioner asserts that Chief Justice Ronald George failed to uphold

the integrity and independence of the judiciary when he chose not to

review the "Sturgeon" decision in December 2008, while taking significant

steps to arrange for that 3rd Appellate decsion to be "overturned" in the

California Legislature.

Petitioner asserts that "Sturgeon"  held  that the Legislature may not

"delegate" its authority to prescribe compensation to California judges

of courts of record. Thus, the passage of SB 11xx into law continues

to violate the rule of law,   SB 11xx must be repealed.

Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all of the judges activities.

2. The misconduct of Chief Justice George in this matter is outrageous

and reprehensible. It shocks the conscience to witness the cavalier fashion

in which the Chief Justice has apparently jusified, in his own mind, the

notion that  ethics, integrity, the rule of law and respect for the Public,

don't matter in this situation.

Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially

and diligently.

3.  Chief Justice George and any of the other justices who knew about the plan

to illegally subvert the judicial ruling in "Sturgeon" have failed to perform the

duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.

Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judges quasi-judicial and

extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with

judicial obligations.

4.   On September 15, 2000, Chief Justice Ronald George gave a speach

at the California Judges Association Meeting in San Diego, at which he made

a public comment that the LA County payments to the LA Superior Court

Judges "may be unconstitutional." (Richard I. Fine, AHRC) Petitioner asserts that

vocalizing such a belief is commendable, yet tolerating such a practice and

allowing it to go on is precisely why the PEOPLE now respectfully demand

his impeachment.

Canon 5. A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate

 political activity.

5. Petitioner asserts that by denying review of the "Sturgeon" decision and

thereafter using public funds for the private gain of judges, to cause a legislative

reversal of that decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, and any other justices

involved,  became embroiled in a "political activity", making  policy decisions

which were improper  and  unethical.

Petitioner further asserts that the inclusion of a clause in  SB 11xx which in effect  

granted retroactive civil/criminal  immmunity, was an overt political act.

  Article II, Section 4 of the California Constitution:
"The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections..."

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE IV  LEGISLATIVE

SEC. 17.  The Legislature has no power to grant, or to authorize a
city, county, or other public body to grant, extra compensation or
extra allowance to a public officer, public employee, or contractor
after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into
and performed in whole or in part, or to authorize the payment of a
claim against the State or a city, county, or other public body under
an agreement made without authority of law.
  

Petitioner's respectfully reserves the right to submit additional

facts, documents or opinions regarding The Peoples' Petition

for Impeachment during the next week, and throughout the

proceedings, as necessary.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the State of California

that the foregoing information  is accurate to the best of my knowledge, and

has been brought forth for the common good.