|
Financial Ties
Raise Questions About SoCal Judges [An Article] |
|
Long-standing
financial ties between the county and local judges could upset
the scales of justice. |
|
Oct
15, 2008 by NBC Los Angeles |
|
|
|
If you take L A County
to court can you get a fair shake ...or are L A County judges
serving two masters? Tonight a KNBC investigation airs the long
standing ties between the County and local judges that some say have
upset the scales of justice. Channel 4's Paul Moyer has the story:
John Rizzo: "Los Angeles has the best courts money can buy." Paul
Moyer: "Activist John Rizzo is worried about potentially corrupt
judges in Los Angeles County. He says that if you try take the L A
County to court, over child custody, property rights or criminal
matter, or if you sue the county Board of Supervisors, you're gonna
lose, because he says that the judges handling these matters are
feeding at the County trough. |
|
|
|
|
Court shoots down
judicial perks [An Article] |
|
Oct
15, 2008 by Troy
Anderson |
|
|
In a practice
critics called a waste of taxpayer money, Los Angeles County has
violated the state constitution for years by paying judges perks and
supplemental benefits over their state salaries, a state appeals
court has ruled. The justices wrote that the state constitution
requires the Legislature to set judges' pay - and the Board of
Supervisors' practice of paying judges an extra $46,436 annually in
cash benefits is "not permissible." Some attorneys have alleged that
the county's payments to judges make it nearly impossible to get a
fair trial in cases involving the county. "This court decision will
stop these unconstitutional payments and restore our constitutional
right to have free access to the courts and fair trials," said
taxpayer advocate attorney and Encino resident Richard I. Fine. Last year, the California State
Bar Court urged that Fine be disbarred, accusing him of moral
turpitude. The move came several years after Fine alleged the judges
had not disclosed that the county paid them the extra cash benefits
in cases in which the county was a party. Arguing that the appellate
court decision had "vindicated him," Fine said he filed a motion
asking the court to dismiss the case against him. |
|
|
|
|
C.A. Holds Local
Judges' Extra Benefits Unconstitutional [An Article] |
|
Oct
14, 2008 by Kenneth Ofgang |
|
|
Los
Angeles
County's
payment of benefits to Los Angeles Superior Court judges, over and
above those given all superior court judges under state law,
violates the California Constitution, the Fourth District Court of
Appeal ruled Friday. One judge, speaking anonymously, said yesterday
that court officials were in conversations all weekend about how to
respond to the ruling, and that the court's rejection of Sec. 1241
could negatively impact as many as 92 percent of California judges,
and trial court employees as well. The case is Sturgeon v. County of
Los Angeles, D050832. |
|
|
|
|
CRUSADING ATTORNEY
RICHARD I. FINE VINDICATED IN HIS BATTLE WITH CALIFORNIA STATE
BAR [An Article]
|
|
California
Court of Appeal Holds LA County Payment of "Local Judicial
Benefits" to LA Superior Court Judges Unconstitutional
Rendering State Bar Prosecution and State Bar Court Decision a
Sham, Without Merit, Frivolous and Baseless |
|
Oct
22, 2008 by Richard I. Fine
|
|
|
|
On October 10, 2022 the
California Court of Appeal held that the payment of "local judicial
benefits" by the County of Los Angeles to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court Judges is unconstitutional .." not permissible."
Statistics show that the $46,436.00 cash payments to the judges who
were deciding LA County cases may have affected their decisions, as
apparently no judge decided in favor of the plaintiffs in any case
against LA County. LA County knew that it had cases before the LA
Superior Court judges when it gave them the "local judicial benefit"
monies and the LA Superior Court judges knew that LA County had
cases before them when they accepted the "local judicial benefit"
monies and did not disclose such to the public or the other party.
These actions may violate the mail fraud statute as they violate
"honest services" mail and wire fraud ("honest services fraud")
within the meaning of the statute. The LA Superior Court judges and
Court officials know that they are denying access to the courts and
due process to every individual or entity who is a litigant against
LA County, by deciding cases when they are receiving money from LA
County. The systematic acceptance of bribes or loans by a judge and
not disclosing such by a judge has been held to be "mail fraud" in
the case of United States v. Holzer. The Sturgeon decision has shown
that no reason exists for the State Bar prosecution of Fine or the
State Bar Court decision recommending the "disbarment" of Fine other
than political retaliation for Fine having to have been the first
lawyer to expose and seek to stop the unconstitutional and unlawful
"local judicial benefit" payments. |
|
|
|
|
Grand jury report
questions county benefits for state employee [An Article] |
|
Jun
29, 2007 by Adam C. Hartmann
|
|
|
The Board of
Supervisors should reduce or eliminate the benefits it continues to
authorize for Superior Court judges, the latest San Bernardino
County grand jury report recommends.. The average judge's salary has
increased from $108,000 in 1997 to $171,000, and San Bernardino
County has a lower cost of living than many Southern California
counties, the report states. The state has authorized 16 more judges
for San Bernardino County, so the total benefits outlay for 99
judges would be $1.95 million, the grand jury report
indicates. |
|
|
|
|
California Court of Appeal
Rules that Extra Compensation for Los Angeles County Judges
Violates California Constitution [Press Release] |
|
Decision
Would Cut Compensation and Save Taxpayers $21 Million a
Year Oct
15, 2008 by Judicial Watch |
|
|
|
|
Judicial Watch, the
public interest group that fights government corruption and judicial
abuse, announced today that a California Court of Appeal ruled on
October 10th that a scheme by Los Angeles County to pay superior
court judges in the county approximately $21 million annually in
perks and supplemental benefits on top of what they already receive
from the state violates the California State Constitution [Harold P.
Sturgeon v. The County of Los Angeles, Fourth App. Dist. Div. One,
Case No. D050832]. "This appellate court ruling represents a
tremendous victory to the taxpayers and citizens of California,"
said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This extra pay for LA
County judges was an affront to the rule of law and now, thanks to
our lawsuit, taxpayers in LA could save up to $21 million a
year." |
|
|
|
|
Judicial Watch
Files Lawsuit against Los Angeles County for Allowing Judges
to "Double-Dip" on Benefits, Perks [Press Release] |
|
County
Judges
amass over $100 Million in Duplicate Benefits at Taxpayers'
Expense Apr
24, 2006 by Judicial Watch |
|
|
|
|
Judicial Watch, the
public interest group that fights government corruption and judicial
abuse, announced that it filed a lawsuit today against Los Angeles
County for allowing individual Los Angeles County judges to amass
more than $35,000 annually in cash allowances from the county to pay
for benefits and perks they are already receiving from the state.
According to the California State Constitution, "[t]he Legislature
shall prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record." In
1997, the California State Legislature enacted a law providing that
"[o]n and after July 1, 1997, the state shall assume sole
responsibility for the funding of court operations," including
salaries and benefits packages. From that point forward, judges were
no longer county employees. However in clear defiance of the
California State Constitution and California law, since 1998, Los
Angeles County has provided at least $100 million in taxpayer funds
to county judges in the form of loc al judicial
benefits. |
|
|
|
|
L.A. County Lets
Judges Draw Duplicate Benefits and Perks [An Article] � � � Aug 20, 2022 by Tracy Weber and
Steve Berry |
|
|
|
|
Los
Angeles
County
officials allow the judges to draw duplicate benefits and perks from
state and local taxes. As a result, the judges receive nearly
$30,000 a year above their base salary of $118,000. Los Angeles
County judges now receive $22,400 in cash from the county for health
and insurance benefits, even though they are fully covered by the
state. There are no strings attached to how judges spend that money.
"If they wanted to go to Vegas on it they could," says Los Angeles
County spokeswoman Judy Hammond.
* The judges are given
$5,520 each year in "professional development" money for legal
journals, educational books and conferences. They are not, however,
required to submit receipts showing where it goes. In fact, records
show that judges have charged the state for educational expenses
instead of using the money the county gave them for just that
purpose.
* On top of the money judges receive in their
paychecks, they also are well positioned for their later years. They
receive two retirements programs at taxpayers expense-one from the
county, one from the state. Chief Justice of California Ronald
George said the great disparity between the pay of Los Angeles
County's 400-plus judges and those laboring elsewhere in the state
"doesn't make sense." Judges in L.A., he said, are "in effect,
double-dipping for benefits." "The Legislature has the authority to
say judges can't have both," George said, but he stopped short of
urging specific action.....Next door in Orange County, for example,
judges are given only $3,000 in cash for extra health and benefits
coverage-87% less than their colleagues in Los Angeles County.
....San Bernardino County, a region mired in a fiscal crisis, gives
judges cash perks totaling more than $19,500 for reasons much
different from those expressed in Los Angeles.....The judges also
believe that they deserve the retirement accounts funded by the
public. The county matches dollar for dollar any money that judges
put into two retirement accounts up to a combined total of 7% of
base salary. As of July, those contributions cost the public $1.9
million a year, with the county obligated to pay a maximum of $4
million if all 428 judicial positions are filled and the judges opt
for the maximum deduction. The state, meanwhile, pays judges 75% of
their salary after retirement, using funds contributed by the judge
and the state. With all these various benefit and perk funds in
play, Los Angeles County judges actually could be free to triple
dip. |
|
|
|