Tag: Corrupt California Others

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

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