Category: Chief Justice

No comments

September 6 2023 A Day of Infamy for Justice in America

  By , , , , , , ,

Los Angeles County California Government Corruption Criminals Stealing California Gavin Newsom Legislators

A bold headline! What does it mean?

September 6, 2023, is the last day that the California Legislature can amend pending California Assembly Judicial Committee Bill AB 1756, “Omnibus Judicial Legislation” to end thirty-seven (37) years of judicial corruption depriving California citizens and residents due process and an honest judicial system.

The judiciary illegally accepted approximately $1-1.1 billion from California counties and courts, in violation of the California Penal Code’s “bribe” and related sections, and the federal criminal law 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 – “The Intangible Right to Honest Services” under which “Bribery” is an element to prove.

The California Legislature has refused to stop the corruption for thirty-seven (37) years: (1) since 1985 when the “illegal payments” began; (2) 2000 when Richard I. Fine “discovered” the hidden illegal payments and exposed them in court documents; (3) 2008 when the California Court of Appeal held the payments violated the California Constitution; (4) immediately followed by 2009 when the California Judicial Council, the courts and the judges prevailed upon Darryl Steinberg, President pro Tempore of the California State Senate to falsely claim an Emergency Session of the State Legislature and pass SBX 2 11 in seven (7) days to reinstate the illegal payments on an “interim basis” and give the California Superior Court judges who accepted illegal payments and the counties and courts and employees who made the illegal payments, “retroactive immunity from California Criminal Prosecution, Civil Liability and Discipline” which Governor Schwarzenegger immediately signed; (5) 2010 when the California Court of Appeal ruled it was only the Legislature who could stop the illegal payments; and (6) 2015 when the California Court of Appeal again stated it was only the Legislature who could stop the illegal payments.

Commencing in 2020-2021, Richard I. Fine drafted and with others commenced sending draft legislation to the legislators and Governor Newsom, and contacting legislators to stop the illegal payments and the corruption.

The legislators refused to act.

In 2022 through the present, the last draft was sent numerous times and legislators and Governor Newsom were contacted.

The California Legislators and Governor Newsom are “Warring against the Constitution”.

After the draft amendment had been circulated to all the legislators and Governor Newsom, they continued to refuse their duty to even consider it. By acting so: (1) they breached their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment’s “right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”; and (2) they are “Warring against the Constitution.

See 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.”

Why is the Draft Legislation and the Legislature’s Refusal Important?

The draft legislation will: (1) remove the existing corruption in the Judicial Branch of the California Government; (2) Create a Permanent State Commission to Oversee the Judicial Branch of the California Government; (3) Compensate the Victims of Judicial Misconduct and Judicial Abuse of Power; (4) Establish Term Limits for Judges and Justices; (5) Prevent any Judge or Justice who received illegal payments from serving in a State elected or Appointed Office; and (6) Establish Retention Elections for all Trial Court Judges who are unopposed in their election to renew their judicial office.

What specifically is the corruption?

The corruption is California counties and courts paying money to the California State Superior (Trial Court) judges in addition to their California state compensation.

The payments are called “supplemental or local judicial benefit payments”. The payments are/or can be 29% or greater of the judge’s annual state compensation.

The payments are: (1) additional health and medical insurance for county employees under the “Cafeteria Plan” or the cash representing such plan; (2) money for educational development, usually $8,000.00 to $9,000.00 annually; and (3) 4-5% of the judge’s State salary paid into the judge’s 401K or 457K retirement plan annually.

The result of these payments added to the judge’s annual State salary places the judge’s annual salary equal to, or higher than, the salary of an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

These payments are criminal under the California Penal Code as “Bribes” and under 18 U.S.C Section 1346 (the intangible right to honest services.)

These payments were/are approximately $1-1.1 billion illegally paid to approximately 90% of California State Superior Court (Trial Court) judges from 1985 through the present.

How widespread is the corruption?

Over time, these trial court judges became: (1) California Court of Appeal justices and California Supreme Court justices, resulting in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court also being compromised; and (2) U.S. District Court judges and 9th Circuit Court of Appeal justices, resulting in the U.S. District Courts and the 9th Circuit Courts located in California also being compromised.

How does the “Draft Legislation” relate to Justice in America?

The “Draft Legislation” can be adopted by any State and expanded or reduced to encompass any “local” or State problem.

The “Draft Legislation” can be adopted by the U.S. Congress and expanded or reduced to encompass any federal problems.

Examples for immediate federal adoption to address the most pressing current problems in the current U.S. Supreme Court which are: (1) the U.S. Supreme Court does not have an ethical Code of Conduct to govern its affairs; (2) the U.S. Supreme Court does not have any law resolving the denial of due process to the unopposed Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari in which the facts of denial of due process are clearly shown in the Petition with the controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedents; (3) The U.S. Supreme Court decisions denying petitions for a Writ of Certiorari and Petitions for a rehearing based upon a “denial of due process” do not state reasons, thereby denying many Petitions, which should have been granted.

The “Draft Legislation” can be adopted to address these U.S. Supreme Court problems:

(1) by adding an ethical Code of Conduct to be applied to the United States Supreme Court;

(2) by adding a law stating as follows: “A per curiam decision granting the relief sought in an unopposed Petition for a Writ of Certiorari will be issued if the Petition states: (a) the facts of the alleged due process; and (b) the controlling United States Supreme Court precedent”; and

(3) by adding a law stating: “All decisions denying a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari or a Petition for a rehearing in which a denial of due process is raised, must state reasons for the denial with a controlling United States Supreme Court precedent”.

Conclusion

The American Judicial System is presently held in the lowest level of respect in its history.

Its Constitutional structure remains strong. However, it and the country are in a difficult period of contrasting ideological beliefs preventing the country from uniting for the common good.

Opportunities to move forward are squandered, as demonstrated by the actions of the California legislature which refuses to remove the corruption from the judicial branch of the State government, causing millions of California residents to needlessly suffer.

The same is true in the United States.

The draft legislation hopefully will move the country forward through its recognition of basic problems and developing solutions to those problems which can be adopted both by the states and the country.

Richard I. Fine, Doctor of Law, Ph.D. Law-International Law

Chairman, Campaign for Judicial Integrity; Co-Chairperson, Judicial Reform Committee, DivorceCorp.

ORIGINAL STORY

Legislators will pass sham budget to protect their paychecks

MORE ON DR. RICHARD I. FINE AND SBX211
THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM

SINCE 2013 3,467,732 PEOPLE

HAVE SIGNED A PETITION AND SENT MESSAGES TO CONGRESS

HELP SHARE AND SUPPORT THE NATIONAL COURT VICTIM DATABASE: Share with your Family, Friends and Anyone affected by Judicial Abuse

COURT VICTIM SOLUTION

  By , , , , , , , , , ,

Help support Dr Richard I fines Amend SBX 2 11 to stop judicial corruption

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION SOLUTION

WHY IS THIS LEGISLATION NEEDED:

This is a response to the systemic emergency judicial crisis in California existing since 1985 when individual counties and courts commenced paying State Superior Court judges sitting on State Superior Courts for their counties “supplemental or local judicial benefits” in addition to the State compensation (salary and benefits) paid to the judges by the State causing disparity in judges judicial salary and benefits, double taxation for citizens and residents in the “paying counties”, “unconstitutional (unlawful) ‘supplemental local judicial benefit payments’” to the judges resulting in 90% of California’s Superior Court judges receiving “bribes” under California and federal criminal laws;

WHO CAN APPLY FOR THE COURT VICTIM ABUSE SUPPORT, OR WHOSE ELIGIBLE?

  • Court Victims from cases since 1985
  • Civil, Criminal, Family, Juvenile, Probate, Appellate and Supreme Courts
  • What states are eligible, this bill needs to be initially in one state after which it can be passed in all states

WHAT DO COURT VICTIMS RECEIVE?

  • Read the Legislation HERE
  • victims get compensated starting at $1-10 million and cumulating, the judge who committed the misconduct is reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance who must complete its work within 6 months of the date of reporting and report monthly to the State Auditor who reports annually to the Legislature.
  • The Judge who committed the misconduct is reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance who MUST complete its work within 6 months of the date of reporting and report monthly to the State Auditor who reports annually to the Legislature.
  • The judges and justices are limited to a 24-year cumulative term for all offices held. Any

WHAT DO COURT VICTIMS NEED TO DO TO HAVE THIS AMENDED BILL PASS?

  • Write to your state senator, assembly person and Governor Newsom demanding the legislation be enacted, you can use the form letter below, how to find out who you need to write to
  • The reasons are the Successive Legislators have done nothing for 13 years since the Court held it was their job to solve the problem of the unlawful county and court payments to the State Superior Court judges, the State had the money with its near $100 billion budget surplus in 2022 and spent it on other programs, instead of passing the legislation which would commence directly compensating the victims of judicial corruption, install judicial term limits, remove judges who committed criminal acts, stop them from holding another elective office, and establishing a State Citizens Commission to Oversee the Judiciary.
  • They help by doing the same thing to get all political action groups like Common Cause, ACLU, Unions, Chambers of Commerce, Disability Groups, LBGT+ groups, etc. to put pressure on the Legislature and Governor.
  • These are actions that the “victims of judicial corruption and judicial abuse of power can take now”.
  • If I may use an analogy, when the lights go out in a stadium, thousands of individual candles bring light to the  stadium.

Remember, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead. We are that group
Also, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead.

DR. RICHARD I. FINE AMEND SBX 2 11

READ THE BILL HERE

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

MORE
MORE INFO ABOUT RICHARD I. FINE’S EXPERIENCE
INFO ABOUT RICHARD I. FINE’S CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL INTEGRITY

 

HELP SHARE AND SUPPORT THE NATIONAL COURT VICTIM DATABASE: Share with your Family, Friends and Anyone affected by Judicial Abuse

Support this Bill to GET JUSTICE for ALL COURT VICTIMS Nationwide

  By , , , , , , , , ,

Support this Dr Richard I Fine Los Angeles County California Corrupt Members ignore 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 the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.” (Emphasis added.)

AB 2960

AB 2960 was an Omnibus Judicial Bill drafted by the California Assembly Judicial Committee, considered and amended by the California Senate Judicial Committee, approved by the California Legislature on September 9, 2022, and signed by Governor Newsom on September 9, 2022 to clarify the workings of the California Judicial Branch.

The Omnibus Judicial Bill encompassed non-controversial matters and did not address any substantive issues.

An Omnibus Judicial Bill comes up every two years for consideration.

How Will the “Fine Legislation” Help You

The “Fine Legislation”:

(1) Amends SBX 2 11 by establishing a California State Citizens Commission (Commission) to oversee the Judicial Branch of the California government by:

(a) Compensating the victims of judicial misconduct and/or judicial abuse of power through monetary payments of $1-10 million for specific categories of damage cumulated for a total dollar damage determined and awarded by the Commission, paid directly to the recipient by the California Controller, who reports the victim identified “judicial officer” to the Commission on Judicial Performance on a monthly and annual basis;

The categories are:

“(aa) $1 million tax free per year for each year from January 1, 1985 onwards for defamation (including libel) caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power which existed or continues to exist;

(bb) $10 million tax free per year for each year from January 1, 1985 onwards for unlawful incarceration caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power which existed or continues to exist;

(cc) $10 million tax free for fraud upon the court caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(dd) $10 million tax free for fraud caused by caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(ee) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with contract caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(ff) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with contract caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(gg) $10 million tax free for intentional interference with prospective business advantage caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(hh) $10 million tax free for negligent interference with prospective business advantage caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(ii) $10 million tax free for intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(jj) $10 million tax free for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(kk) $10 million tax free for bias against self-represented litigants from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(ll) $10 million tax free for bias against litigants with physical or mental disabilities from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(mm) $10 million tax free for abuse against litigants over 65 years old (elder abuse) from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(nn) $10 million tax free for any other cause of action not mentioned above caused by judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power from January 1, 1985 onwards;

(oo) $10 million tax free for any other unmentioned misconduct or abuse of power by the “Judicial Officer” (Referees, Commissioners, Temporary Judges, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeal Justices and/or State Supreme Court Justices) from January 1, 1985 onwards; and

(pp) additionally for attorneys who brought cases against counties or the courts of the State of California from January 1, 1985 onwards:

(1) one third (33.33%) of damages alleged or shown in any case prior to trial dismissed by a Superior Court judge who received “supplemental or local judicial benefits” or other unlawful payment;

(2) forty percent (40%) for any case settled or dismissed prior to trial; and

(3) one half (50%) of damages awarded at trial and/or then denied or overturned by the California Supreme Court, any panel of a State Court of Appeal or Appellate Division of a Superior Court upon which a justice or judge who violated or is violating paragraph (2)(a)-(c) above was or is a member;”;

(b) The Commission on Judicial Performance is required to resolve all complaints from any source within six months of the receipt of any report, complaint, or source;

(i) with a written decision containing the reasons for the decision signed by the Commissioners; and

(ii) in the event such investigation is not completed with a signed report within the six-month period of time, the Commission on Judicial Performance shall be deprived of all State Compensation and benefits until such Report is filed and with the Commission on Judicial Performance and served upon the Controller/source/complainant;

(c) The Commission on Judicial Performance is required to make semi annual reports to the California State Auditor; and

(d) The California State Auditor is required to continually audit the Commission on Judicial Performance and to make an annual report to the California State Legislature with recommendations for legislation, if needed; and

(2) Repeals SBX 2 11 Sections 2, 3 and 4 along with Government Code Sections 68220, 68221and 68222;

(3) Amends AB 2960 by:

(a) adding a Section to establish a twenty four (24) year term limit on all Judicial Officers, in particular, the members of the judiciary who received retroactive immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution and disciplinary action under SBX 2 11, Section 5, thereby allowing any criminal action under 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 to continue unabated with those judicial officers and allowing both state and federal criminal actions to be brought against any subsequently appointed or elected judicial officers receiving “supplemental or local judicial benefits” from counties or courts;

(b) adding a Section precluding any Judicial Officer who received or is currently receiving “supplemental or local judicial benefits from a county or court” from holding a State elective or appointed office; and

(c) adding a Section requiring any State Superior Court Judge seeking re-election in an unopposed general election, be required to be on the General Election Ballot in a Retention Election requiring 50 plus percent of the votes cast be to retain him/her to retain the State Superior Court Judge position.

The “Fine Legislation” also contains a section of “egregious examples” of judicial misconduct or judicial abuse of power with payouts under the sections and a section showing the composition of the State Commission with responsibilities, terms and original individuals.

“AB 1756, the 2023 draft of the Omnibus Judicial Legislation which has yet to be enacted by the California Legislature does not contain any of the amendments to SBX 2 11 enacted as Government Code 68220-68222 or to be added to SBX 2 11 or the amendments to be added to AB 2960 in the “Fine Legislation”.

The “Fine Legislation” may be adopted for any State with changes made unique to such State.

 

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

READ THE PETITION HERE

Actual Supreme Court Document location

MORE ON DR. RICHARD I. FINE AND AMEND SBX 2 11

HELP SHARE AND SUPPORT THE NATIONAL COURT VICTIM DATABASE: Share with your Family, Friends and Anyone affected by Judicial Abuse