Petition to Recall Six California Supreme Court Justices and L.A. Superior Court Judge David Yaffey
- av: The Citizens of Califronia
- mottagare: California State Legislators
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 AngelesCase 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.
genom att skriva under accepterar du användarvillkor för Care2 Du kan hantera dina epostabonnemang när som helst.
Har problem med att skriva under detta? Låt oss veta.