Tag: Amend SBX211

What is Wrong with the County Payments to Judges? 

  By , , , , , , , ,
If you don't know Los Angeles California Dr Richard I Fine Patriot lawyer former DOJ Prosecutor you should

The counties are parties in cases before the judges. The judges are state elected officials whose compensation is set by the Legislature and paid by the state, not the counties. The counties also may reimburse the courts for the court’s payments to the judges. If the court is being reimbursed by the county, the court is illegally using county money to double pay the judge above the compensation set by the state legislature. Payments from parties to judges caused judges to lose their jobs* and were held to be bribes and to violate the “intangible right to honest services”**. In the 2008 case of Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeal held that the payments from Los Angeles County to state elected Superior Court judges which were called “local judicial benefits” violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution. In response to the Sturgeon case, a special law called SBX 2 11 jointly sponsored by the California Judicial Council and the California Judges Association was enacted on February 20, 2009. This gave the judges who received the illegal payments from the counties and the government officials who made the illegal payments retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action. It also required the counties making such payments to continue the payments made as of July 1, 2008, during the then current term of the judge. The last of those current terms expired in 2012. 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. “Impeachment” and “conviction” required the judge’s removal from office. However, SBX 2… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

Richard I. Fine’s SBX 2 11

  By , , , , , , ,
CVSBX 2 11 Basic explanation

SBX 2 11 was enacted on February 20, 2009 Effective May 20, 2009 as emergency, budget trailer legislation within three days and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, after the Court held the County payments directly to State Superior Court judges violated Article VI, Section 19 of the California Constitution. SBX 2 11 made the payments legal with the counties having the option to discontinue the payments on a 180 day notice. SBX 2 11 also gave retroactive immunity as of 7/1/2008 from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to all judges who received the payments and all governments and employees who made the payments. Two counties stopped the payments. A December, 2009 Judicial Council Report to the Legislature showed that 90% of the Superior Court Judges received the illegal payments. That figure is approximately correct today due to the greater increase in Superior Court judges in LA County and other counties where the payments are still existing an either a non increase or minimal increase in counties where the payments do not exist. Additionally, these Superior Court judges became Court of Appeal justices and California Supreme Court justices, thereby infecting the entire California Judiciary. In 2010, SBX 2 11 was held to be “ interim legislation”, with the Legislature having the responsibility to solve the problem of the “ payments”. The Legislature has done nothing since 2010. The immediate enactment of this emergency, budget trailer legislation will: (1) solve the Judicial Crisis created by the federal and state unconstitutional and criminal payments to approximately 90% of the State Superior Court judges by counties and courts since the mid 1980s; (2) Establish a Permanent State Commission to: (a) Oversee the actions of the State Judiciary and related the State Bar and… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE