Author: Chat Tech Support

California Has a $97.5 Billion Budget Surplus and Refuses to Compensate Its Victims of Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power

  By
Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 anyone who does not support this bill is part of the corruption

I. Introduction. California is in a Judicial Corruption Crisis, and has been, since the mid to late 1980s when Los Angeles County began paying “supplemental or local judicial benefits” to California State Superior judges sitting on the California State Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. This crisis has been exasperated by the California Legislature’s failure to resolve the crisis despite the Court’s ruling it was the Legislature’s constitutional responsibility on two occasions in 2011 and 2015. This 2022 California legislative session, the California Legislature was presented with: (1) a draft Bill Amending SBX 2 11 and related Government Code Sections; Establishing State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight and Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power; and (2) an immediate method to enact the Legislation by “Floor Amendment”. The Legislature refused to act prior to the 2022 session ending on August 31, 2022. This article will discuss: (1) The Historic Judicial Corruption Problem created by County and Court Payments to California State Superior Court Judges; (2) The Present State of California’s Judicial Corruption; (3) The Failure of the California Legislature to Resolve the Judicial Corruption Problem despite the Court’s Ruling on two Occasions in 2011 and 2015; (4) The Immediate Proposed Legislative Solution to the Judicial Corruption Problem; (5) An Immediate Method to Enact the Legislation by “Floor Amendment”; and (6) The Voters’ Solution if the Present Legislature Continues to Refuse to Enact the Immediate Solution in the Extended Legislative Session. II. The Historic Corruption Problem created by County and Court Payments to California State Superior Court Judges. Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution states in relevant part: “The Legislature shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record.” Commencing in the mid… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

Groundbreaking Legislation Proposed to Address Judicial Corruption in California

  By
Janet Phelan Groundbreaking Legislation Proposed to Address Judicial Corruption in California Dr Richard I Fines Amend SBX 2 11

By Janet Phelan A piece of legislation, revolutionary in its implications, has been drafted and is now in the process of seeking sponsorship in the California Legislature. Drafted by Richard I. Fine, a former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice, founder and chief of the first municipal antitrust division in the U.S. and Special Counsel to the Governmental Efficiency Committee of the Los Angeles City Council, the legislation contains the quiet potential of massively disrupting the court corruption that is now endemic to California Superior Courts. Fine knows about this corruption first hand. In pursuit of confronting a situation in California where state Superior Court judges were receiving “extra monies and benefits” from the counties while hearing cases in which the counties were a party, Fine was summarily jailed on a contempt of court charge in 2010 and left to rot in solitary confinement in Los Angeles County Jail. Fine stuck to his principles and sat it out. He was jailed for a total of 18 months. Summarizing Fine’s plight, Tulanelink wrote, “By law, the judicial salaries of California’s Superior Court judges are set and financed by the state. Many of the counties, however, have utilized schemes for supplementing the salaries of appellate court judges. These supplements assist the judges in their reelection campaigns and help insure favorable outcomes in cases where those counties are defendants. Attorney Richard I. Fine was instrumental in uncovering these extra-legal payments, which began in 1988 and affect more than 1,600 judges. The payments, which currently amount to about $46,000, have been routinely omitted from the financial disclosure forms required of all judges. Fine’s campaign to expose this judicial misconduct led to his disbarment, and he was subsequently tried and imprisoned for contempt by… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE