Category: Los Angeles County

TODAY OUR CHOICE IS: (1) VOTE “NO”; or (2) CONTINUE TO LIVE UNDER A CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

  By , , , , , , , , , ,
Vote no or live under a corrupt judicial system Governor Gavin Newsom did not support Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 to hold judges accountable

CALIFORNIA VOTERS GUIDE TO STOP JUDICIAL CORRUPTION ON 11/8/2022 THIS IS YOUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECTLY END CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL CORRUPTION. VOTE “NO” TO EVERY CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICE SEEKING RE-ELECTION. VOTE AGAINST EVERY CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SEEKING RE-ELECTION IN EVERY COUNTY VOTE AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AND EVERY INCUMBENT LEGISLATOR SEEKING RE-ELECTION. Richard I. Fine, Doctor of Law, Ph.D. Law (International Law), Chmn. Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co Chmn. Judicial Reform Comm., DivorceCorp. Explains: “Since the mid 1980s, California counties and Superior Courts have paid approximately 90% of the California Superior Court judges “supplemental or local judicial benefits” in addition to the judges State compensation. These payments are over $400 million. The Superior Court judges receiving the payments became California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court justices, corrupting the entire California judicial system.” Fine continued: “In 2008 the California Courts held the payments violated Article 6, Section 19 of the California Constitution. The judges responded by hiring a lobbyist who engineered the enactment of SBX 2 11. SBX 211 made the payments temporally legal and gave California retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to the judges who received the payments and the counties, county supervisors and employees who made the payments.” Fine further stated: “The Superior Court judges are disqualified but sit on cases. Examples are: (1) child custody and family law cases; (2) class action cases; (3) conservator and elder cases; (4) constitutional cases; (5) contract cases; (6) criminal cases; (7) death, estate, and probate cases; (8) eminent domain cases; (9) environmental cases; (10) personal injury cases; (11) property cases; (12) regulation cases; (13) tax cases; (14) traffic cases; (15) trust cases; and (16) zoning cases, amongst others.” Fine concluded:… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

End California’s Judicial Corruption before the November 8, 2022 General Election. Here’s How!

  By , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Help pass Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine bill amend SBX 2 11 Help stop the corruption

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… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE