Category: Federal Judge

Support this Bill to GET JUSTICE for ALL COURT VICTIMS Nationwide

  By , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Support this Dr Richard I Fine Los Angeles County California Corrupt Members ignores judicial corruption victims

History of SBX 211 and AB 2960 SBX 2 11 Commencing in the mid to late 1980s California Counties and State Superior Courts began paying State Superior Court judges (Trial Court judges) payments in addition to their State Compensation. These payments were called “Supplemental or Local Judicial Benefit Payments” (payments). California Constitution, Article VI, Section 19, required Judicial State Compensation could only be set by the California Legislature. The payments were held to violate the California Constitution in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008), Review Denied, 2009). In response, the California Legislature approved and Governor Schwarzenegger signed SBX 2 11 on February 20, 2009, Effective May 20, 2009: (1) allowing the payments to continue in Section 2 and adding such as Section 68220 to the California Government Code; (2) defining the payments to include salary, compensation, benefits 401K and 457K plans in Section 3 and adding such as Section 68221 to the California Government Code; (3) stating nothing in SBX 2 11 requires the Judicial Council to pay for judicial benefits or previous benefits in Section 4 and adding such as Section 68222 to the California Government Code. At all times, the payments violated both California and federal Criminal laws as “bribes” under California Criminal law and 18 U.S.C. Section 1346- “the intangible right to honest services” under Federal law. SBX 2 11 addressed the California violations in Section 5 with retroactive immunity as follows: “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… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

The Federal Judiciary is Infested with Sexual Perverts ~ Chief Justice Roberts Looks the Other Way

  By , , ,
Brian Vukadinovich The Federal Judiciary is Infested with Sexual Perverts Chief Justice Roberts Looks the Other Way

A recent article came out by NBC News pointing out that because of many judicial improprieties that have been going on, that there have been increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts, but that Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. The article points out that the Supreme Court has refused for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other code, making it the only court in the United States without a formal set of ethics rules. Roberts’ stated position is that the Supreme Court has “no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance.” Roberts says that “every justice seeks to follow high ethical standards” and that they may turn to “judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles and disciplinary decisions,” and also seek advice from one another. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-gives-incomplete-history-lesson-ncna1286943. Roberts has his head in the sand when he suggests that all is hunky-dory in the way that the judiciary policies itself. Contrary to what Roberts is trying to sell, a committee led by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in 2006 noted the potential dangers of a system in which judges are judging judges. The committee wrote “A system that relies for investigation solely upon judges themselves risks a kind of undue ‘guild favoritism’ through inappropriate sympathy with the judge’s point of view or de-emphasis of the misconduct problem.” The Breyer committee found that complaints were not handled properly and the main problem detected, in high visibility and other complaints, was chief judges’ failure to conduct “adequate” inquiries before dismissing a complaint or to submit “clear… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE