The History and Effect of California’s Judicial Corruption
In 1985, Los Angeles County started paying California Superior Court Judges sitting on the State of California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles “supplemental judicial benefits” in addition to the judges’ State of California Compensation.
In 1988, Los Angeles County Supervisors justified the payments stating they were necessary to “attract and retain qualified people to serve as judges on the LA Superior Court.”
On its face, such explanation doesn’t make sense. Paying a sitting judge, a “supplemental judicial benefit” will not retain him/her in office as he/she must face an election to retain his/her judicial office. It will not recruit a judge as the judge is already in office.
Nor does it appear that over time the Los Angeles County “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” attracted more successful, experienced private lawyers to apply to be politically appointed for judgeships or to run for judgeships more than the usual government lawyers such as deputy district attorneys, deputy public defenders, county counsels and state employees.
The real reason for the Los Angeles County “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” payments was to increase the compensation of the individual members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Article II, Section 4 of the Los Angeles County Charter states in relevant part: “They [Board of Supervisors] shall each receive as compensation for their services a salary, payable monthly from the County Treasury, which shall be the same as that now or hereafter prescribed by law for a judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles,”.
Other counties and Superior Courts followed Los Angeles County.
In 2008, such payments were held to be unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution, in the case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) Review Denied 12/23/2008 [Sturgeon I].
A 2009 Report from the Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council of California showed approximately 90% of California’s approximate 1,600 Superior Court Judges received the unconstitutional payments as follows: Of California’s 58 counties and Superior Courts: (1) 837 judges received supplemental benefits from 11 counties alone; (2) 334 judges received supplemental benefits from counties and Superior Courts for a combined total of 1,129 judges; (3) 334 judges received supplemental benefits from only courts; and (4) 151 judges did not receive any supplemental benefits from 23 counties.
Since 2009, no updated Report has been published. After Sturgeon I, two counties ceased paying the “supplemental or local judicial benefits”, but the increase in the number of judges in the counties paying such has made up the difference.
In response to Sturgeon I, the Legislature passed, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBX 2 11.
Section 2 of SBX 2 11 codified as Govt. Code 68220 (a) allowed the counties to keep paying the sitting judges the monies they paid them on July 1, 2008 “on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date.”
This provision was held to be constitutional as an interim revenue measure in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.4th 344 (2011) [Sturgeon II] in which the Court affirmed Sturgeon I. The Court concluded that since judicial compensation is a state and not a county responsibility, it expected the Legislature to adopt a uniform statewide system of judicial compensation.
This did not occur. In Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 242 Cal.App.4th 1437 (2015) [Sturgeon III], the Court extended the payments to all judges sitting in a court in which judges received county payments on July 1, 2008. The court again called for the Legislature to fix the problem.
Section 5 of SBX 2 11gave the “governmental entity, or officer or employee of a governmental entity”who paid the “supplemental or local judicial benefits” to the judges and the judges who received such retroactive immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary action as of May 20, 2009 (the effective date of SBX 2 11.)
SBX 2 11 passed each chamber of the California Legislature by over a 2/3 vote, effectively “impeaching” and “convicting” the judges who received the county payments of “Misconduct in Office” under California Constitution, Article 4, Section 18, which required the judges’ removal from office. SBX 2 11 did not remove these judges from office. California judges commit “Misconduct in Office” by taking “criminal” payments and violating their oath to uphold the U.S. and California Constitutions and laws each day they remain in office. Further, they committed fraud when taking the oath, without intending to perform the duties of upholding the Constitution and law.
Enacting Section 5 of SBX 2 11, the California Legislators and Governor each violated the federal criminal law of Misprision of Felony (18 U.S.C. Section 4) by concealing and not reporting the judges’ violation of the federal criminal law of the intangible right to honest services (18 U.S.C. Section 1346) and each violated his/her oath of office.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958): ” No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
U.S. judges knew of the California judges’ criminal activity through the enactment of SBX 2 11, its citation in briefs before them and because California judges were appointed to the U.S. District Courts in California and the 9th Circuit. U.S. judges through the U.S. Supreme Court violated constitutional precedent by refusing to disqualify the California judges from cases and violated the federal criminal law of Misprision of Felony by concealing the criminal acts and refusing to report the California judges for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 1346.
U.S. judges’ actions protecting California’s judges destroyed our constitutional rights to access to the courts, due process and a fair trial and the U.S. judicial system.
Since 2009, each California Governor and Legislature has done nothing to cure the judicial corruption.
The result is: (1) Citizens’ constitutional rights were violated in every case from family law to dependency to criminal to probate to eminent domain. In essence, every case in which the county was a party or had an interest in the outcome of the case was corrupted; (2) For over 35 plus years, the California judicial system has been corrupted by county supervisors who wanted to enhance their salaries by paying unlawful “Supplemental Judicial Benefits” to judges, and judges who accepted such payments from counties and courts knowing such were both unlawful and criminal as shown by Sturgeon I and SBX 2 11, Section 5; (3) Approximately $500 million of taxpayer monies which could have been used for hospitals, infrastructure and benefitting society was wasted and is still being wasted on this unlawful conduct; and (4) but for SBX 2 11, Sections 2 and 5: (a) approximately 90% of the present California Superior Court Judges are guilty of “misconduct in office” and should have been impeached, removed from office or criminally prosecuted; (b) approximately a majority of the present California Court of Appeal Justices are within such approximate 90%; and (c) four of the present California Supreme Court Justices are within such approximate 90%: Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger who recently announced her retirement; Governor Newsom’s newly appointed Chief Justice Guerrero and whom he also appointed as an Associate Supreme Court Justice; Governor Newsom’s appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Jenkins; and Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Corrigan.
How to End California’s Judicial Corruption before the November 8, 2022 General Election
(1) Email California Governor Newsom at: CONTACT GOVERNOR NEWSOM; CLICK NEED HELP; CLICK OTHER; Fill in the Message Box (6,000 characters maximum); Press Submit.
State in the email: I respectively request you end California’s 35 plus year Judicial Corruption Crisis and restore an honest judicial system to the citizens by CALLING AN EMERGENCY SESSION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL ELECTION AND STATING YOU RECOMMEND THE LEGISLATURE ENACT THE FOLLOWING BILL WHICH YOU WILL SIGN: “Omnibus Judiciary Bill: (1) Amending SBX 2 11 and related Government Code Sections; (2) Establishing Permanent State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight and Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power; (3) Amending AB 2960 Establishing Judicial Term Limits; and (4) Amending AB 2960 Requiring Retention Elections for Unopposed Superior Court Judges Seeking Re-Election”, Drafted by Richard I. Fine, Doctor of Law, Ph.D. (Law-International Law);
(2) Call Governor Newsom at: (916) 445-2841and leave the same message as above;
(3) Email your own, and each current California Legislator, and state in the email: “I request you end California’s 35 plus year Judicial Corruption Crisis and restore an honest judicial system to the citizens by emailing or calling Governor Newsom, requesting he CALL AN EMERGENCY SESSION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL ELECTION AND STATING HE RECOMMENDS THE LEGISLATURE ENACT THE FOLLOWING BILL WHICH YOU AS A STATE LEGISLATOR SUPPORT: “Omnibus Judiciary Bill: (1) Amending SBX 2 11 and related Government Code Sections; (2) Establishing Permanent State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight and Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power; (3) Amending AB 2960 Establishing Judicial Term Limits; and (4) Amending AB 2960 Requiring Retention Elections for Unopposed Superior Court Judges Seeking Re-Election”, Drafted by Richard I. Fine, Doctor of Law, Ph.D. (Law-International Law);
(4) California’s 2022 State Assemblymember’s Personal Emails
(5) California’s 2022 State Senator’s Personal Emails
(6) For telephone numbers of California Assembly Members please go to assembly.ca.gov;
(7) For telephone numbers of California State Senators please go to senate.ca.gov; “Senate Roster”;
(8) Please post this article or a summary on your FaceBook, Instagram and/or Twitter pages;
(9) Please pass this article on to ten (10) or more of your family, friends and associates: (a) request each of them to contact Governor Newsom, the State Assembly Members and the State Senators irrespective of whether they are California citizens or residents; (b) request each of them to post this article or a summary on their FaceBook, Instagram and/or Twitter pages; and (c) request each of them to pass this article on to ten (10) or more of their family, friends and associates with the same requests.
CALIFORNIA HAS JUST SENT ITS BALLOTS OUT FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022 GENERAL ELECTION. THE VOTERS ARE NOW THINKING OF THE ELECTION.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION.
100% OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION OR ELECTION.
50% OF THE STATE SENATE IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION OR ELECTION.
NOW IS THE ONLY TIME THE POLITICIANS CONSIDER THE VOTERS.
THE POLITICIANS NEED THE VOTERS TO GET ELECTED.
NOW IS THE TIME TO EXERCISE VOTER POWER AND END THE CORRUPTION IN THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
THE “FINE” CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION IS A MODEL FOR JUDICIAL CORRUPTION REFORM LEGISLATION THAT CAN BE ADOPTED IN EVERY STATE AS CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE.
THIS METHOD OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION BEFORE AN ELECTION IS SUPERIOR TO WAITING YEARS FOR AN UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO EVEN CONSIDER ANTI-CORRUPTION LEGISLATION.
A VICTORY IN CALIFORNIA TODAY, DEMONSTRATES VOTERS HAVE, CAN AND WILL EXERCISE THEIR POWER TO END JUDICIAL AND OTHER CORRUPTION WHEN POLITICIANS REFUSE TO ACT!
Richard I. Fine, B.S.; Doctor of Law; Ph.D. (Law-International Law); Chmn., Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co-Chmn., Judicial Reform Comm., DivorceCorp.
Find out who your state representatives are
GO TO: Find Your Rep.legislature.ca.gov/
1. Enter your address
2. Use the “Contact form” on your representatives website
3. Select “Other”
4. Copy and enter the following in the box on your representative’s contact form
Click Copy to Clipboard Below:
Dear representative: California has the most corrupt judicial system in the nation. At present, approximately 90% of the California Superior Court judges receive the illegal payments from counties or courts, and most of the higher court justices received such when they were Superior Court judges.
I demand YOU sponsor and support the Dr. Richard I. Fine Bill “Amending SBX2 11 and Related Government Code Sections; Establishing a State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight and Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power”. Passing the “Fine Bill” solves the “Corruption Problem”.
The reason is: In 2010, the Court held the Legislature was responsible to permanently resolve the problem created by the enactment of SBX 2 11. The Court held SBX 2 11 was interim legislation. SBX 2 11 was enacted in response to the Court holding “supplemental or local judicial benefits” paid to California State Superior Court judges by counties and/or courts was unconstitutional under California Constitution Article 6, Section 19. The payments were and under SBX 2 11 also are criminal under California and federal law. A 2009 Judicial Council Report to the Legislature showed as of 2008, 90% of the California Superior Court judges received the illegal payments. A copy of “Amend SBX 2 11” is located at: https://courtvictim.com/justicebill
Dear representative: California has the most corrupt judicial system in the nation. At present, approximately 90% of the California Superior Court judges receive the illegal payments from counties or courts, and most of the higher court justices received such when they were Superior Court judges. I demand YOU sponsor and support the Dr. Richard I. Fine Bill "Amending SBX2 11 and Related Government Code Sections; Establishing a State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight and Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power”. Passing the “Fine Bill” solves the "Corruption Problem”. The reason is: In 2010, the Court held the Legislature was responsible to permanently resolve the problem created by the enactment of SBX 2 11. The Court held SBX 2 11 was interim legislation. SBX 2 11 was enacted in response to the Court holding “supplemental or local judicial benefits” paid to California State Superior Court judges by counties and/or courts was unconstitutional under California Constitution Article 6, Section 19. The payments were and under SBX 2 11 also are criminal under California and federal law. A 2009 Judicial Council Report to the Legislature showed as of 2008, 90% of the California Superior Court judges received the illegal payments. A copy of "Amend SBX 2 11" is located at: https://courtvictim.com/justicebill
GET PRIORITY AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BILL BY SHOWING YOU HELPED:
Take a photo or screen shot of your submission to your representative’s and keep it where you can refer to it at a later time.
The reason for this is the creators of the bill want to reward those who supported it and helped get it passed. Those victims will be allowed to file for restitution first and will need
to supply proof they’ve done so. Click on the button below to send your snapshot and info:
A copy of the Bill can be found HERE
Richard I. Fine drafted the bill
FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
1. Am I a candidate to get restitution via this Bill?
YES if you’ve been victimized by a California Judge.
2. Does this apply to victims going back how many years?
To the mid 1980’s
3. Besides restitution for my abuse what else does the Bill do to stop Judicial abuse?
A Commission is established to oversee the judiciary
4. What will stop the deep corruption from using the court system once again to ignore the bill or change it once implemented?
The Commission functions to stop all judicial corruption
5. Who is Richard I. Fine?
Richard I. Fine, (Doctor of Law; Ph.D Law-International Law). He is a patriot and lawyer (presently qualified to practice before the United States Supreme Court). He was disbarred from California and “unlawfully incarcerated in solitary coercive confinement without charges being made” for 18 months in the Los Angeles County jail in retaliation for exposing (Dishonorable) Judge David Paul Yafee #29399 and all of the Los Angeles County Superior court judges for accepting unlawful payments/bribes from the county. These payments resulted in literally no one winning a case against the county when a judge made the decision.
Dr. Richard I. Fine FULL BIO
How to Contact Your CA Legislator to Pass “Dr. Richard I. Fine Bill” to End Judicial Corruption
MORE INFO ABOUT RICHARD I. FINE’S EXPERIENCE
INFO ABOUT RICHARD I. FINE’S CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL INTEGRITY
MORE ON DR. RICHARD I. FINE AND AMEND SBX 2 11
- What is Wrong with the County Payments to Judges?
- TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!
- The Dirty Truth Behind California’s $400 Million of “Supplemental Judicial Benefits”
- The Campaign for Judicial Integrity
- Supreme Court of the United States CAROL PULLIAM, Petitioner vs. USC On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari RICHARD ISAAC FINE
- SBX 2 11 gave retroactive immunity from California criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to the judges?
- Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Final 2020 Report Conservatroships
- Richard I. Fine’s SBX 2 11
- Richard I. Fine’s Bill Amending SBX 211 & related Government Code Sections; Establishing State of California Commission on Judicial Oversight & Victims Compensation for Judicial Misconduct & Judicial Abuse of Power
- Richard I. Fine Motion Los Angeles Superior Court Null 08/27/10 Document
- Richard I. Fine Motion Los Angeles County Auditor Judicial Benefits Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Renewal Motion 01/31/11 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Null Void 03/02/11 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Notice Void Null 08/06/10 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Motion to Disqualify, Null & Void Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl 03/08/11 Document
- Richard I. Fine Los Angeles Superior Court Motion Null Dec 2010 Document
- Richard I. Fine Broadcast Amend SBX 211 get restitution for Court Victims and Citizen Oversight
- Richard Fine, The Bravest Man in the Legal Field
- Oaths, Laws, Codes, Bills & Legal Canons are useless because no one enforces anything
- Keep contacting California’s State Senators and State Assembly Members urging them to support & enact Campaign’s Amendment to SBX 2 11