Letter from CA. Legislative Analyst's Office

Background:

Unbeknownst to you, J.A.I.L. has suffered being assailed by the City of Los Angeles. This has caused us upheaval and to seek recovery. The City just happened to seek entrance into the garage out of which J.A.I.L. functions, and we were told that we must remove everything from the garage. While we realize that the constraint of the Fourth Amendment applies, we also know from years of experience in the courts that so long as the City has the courts covering for their unconstitutional acts, it is futile to argue the Constitution and truth with them.

We have been forced to remove two of our printing presses, cases of printed religious materials, and three J.A.I.L. computers by which we currently reach the nation with the truth you now receive. One thing we are thankful for is that this is just an arbitrary action on the part of the City as they do not really know with whom they are dealing. Things would be totally different if J.A.I.L.  currently could be called upon for protection.

The above action on the part of the City has caused us to have to filter through years of papers, documents, lawsuit briefs to determine what is expendable. We have come across so many valuable papers that represent our ministry and our history, and among them is a communication with the California Legislative Analyst regarding the inception of J.A.I.L. dated January 19, 1995.  

Subject: Letter from Legislative Analyst's office and our response

Legislative Analyst's Office

Alex MacBain, Fiscal & Policy Analyst

California Legislature

Legislative Budget Committee

925 L Street, Suite 1000

Sacramento CA 95814

State of California

Legislative Budget Committee

M E M O R A N D U M

Date:            December 19, 1995

To:               Ron Branson

From:           Alex MacBain, Legislative Analyst's Office

Subject:        The Judicial Reform Act of 1996

    In order to complete our office's analysis of your initiative proposal, it would be very helpful to receive your response to the following questions about its meaning and fiscal impact. Thanks again for your cooperation in this effort. Given the timeframe for completing the title and summary of the initiative, time is of the essence in this matter. The role of our office is to prepare a preliminary analysis for the Attorney General's office which gives a brief summary of the proposal as well as a preliminary analysis of the fiscal effects on local and state government. My initial questions are as follows:

    Paragraph (c).  By citing "deliberate disregard of material facts" is it your intent to remove judicial immunity on issues surrounding the rules of evidence (for example exclusion of evidence deemed prejudicial)?

    By citing "judicial acts without jurisdiction" and "Constitutional violations" is it your intent to remove judicial immunity if a jurisdictional or constitutional issue has been overturned by a higher court? What if the initial decision is consistent with case law, or is a novel issue with no prior case law?

    Paragraph (d).  Local grand juries report to a superior court judge, and the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) reports to the Supreme Court. Is there a governmental body that the SGJs will report to?

    What is the role of the special nongovernmental advisors? How are they chosen?

    Are these advisors to be paid and how is that pay to be determined? Other than being nongovernmental, are there any minimum qualifications for these advisors?

    Paragraph (e).  Is it your intention that rents, staffing, compensation for special prosecutors and organizational infrastructure for the regional "seats" all be paid out of the operational budget for each SGJ?

    Paragraph (f).  Does the meaning of "exhaust all judicial remedies available" include a hearing before the CJP? If a hearing before CJP is held and the judge is censured in some manner, does that preclude undertaking any investigation or action by the SGJs? Do you intend that special writs in state courts or actions in federal courts be "exhausted" before consideration by the SGJ?

    Paragraph (g).  Is it your intent that law enforcement personnel include federal law enforcement personnel?

    Do you intend that persons convicted of nonviolent felonies to be allowed to serve as special grand jurors? Does this allow felons convicted of moral turpitude to serve?

    The initiative states "[a] simple majority shall determine any matter." Is it your intent that 13 votes are required for any 25 member SGJ to make findings, or a majority of all special grand jurors present at the time of the vote?

    Paragraph (h).  Do you intend for there to be any consequences in cases where one of the parties (including the SGJ) does not meeting [sic] the deadlines outlined in this paragraph? Do you intend that extensions can be filed for and granted?

    Paragraph (j).  By excluding voir dire, do you intend that there can be no disqualifications of jurors for cause?

    Do you intend that special trial jurors be paid at the same rate as trial jurors? Do you intend that they are paid from the operational budget of the SGJ?

    What are your intentions regarding minimum qualifications for the special prosecutor? Do you intend for there to be limitations or disqualifications as to conflicts of interest and issues of bias?

    What is the intent for the role of the judge in these proceedings if the special trial jury has the power to judge both law and fact?

    Paragraph (o).  Should any part of this proposition come under constitutional challenge, is it your intent that no state judge would be able to adjudicate the matter? Do you intend that a federal judge, or a judge from another state would adjudicate any challenge regarding the interaction of this initiative with the California Constitution?

*  *  *

The Judicial Misconduct Review

11304 Chandler Blvd., #207

North Hollywood, California 91601

(818) 386-5804

SPONSOR OF THE JUDICIAL REFORM ACT OF 1996

December 23, 1995

Mr. Alex MacBain

Legislative Analyst's Office

925 L Street, Suite 1000

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 445-4656; FAX (916) 324-4281

Re:  Your written questions regarding The Judicial Reform Act of 1996 received by FAX 12/20;

       Our responses thereto.

    Paragraph (c).  By citing "deliberate disregard of material facts" is it your intent to remove judicial immunity on issues surrounding the rules of evidence (for example exclusion of evidence deemed prejudicial)?

    Answer:  We do not intent to alter the rules of evidence, but we do intend to prevent judges from being able, with immunity, to deliberately disregard the facts and evidence in order to manipulate the outcome of a case. The initiative would not strip a judge of legitimate powers, but merely prevents judges from exercising "with immunity" powers they never legally possessed.

    By citing "judicial acts without jurisdiction" and "Constitutional violations" is it your intent to remove judicial immunity if a jurisdictional or constitutional issue has been overturned by a higher court?

    Answer:  Judicial jurisdiction is prescribed by the Legislature through statute. The SGJ will be called upon to determine whether the action of the judge violated the applicable statute. It is the intent of this proposition that the SGJ follows a "rule of reason." The proposition is not designed to punish a judge for an unpopular or erroneous decision; this is properly left to existing appellate procedure. It is designed, however, that when the Constitution and judicial opinion conflict, the Constitution shall prevail. In that spirit, the answer to this question is Yes.

    What if the initial decision is consistent with case law; or is a novel issue with no prior case law?

    Answer:  Case law (judicial opinion) is not the sole criteria to guide the SGJ; the SGJ will be called upon to apply the rule of reason in accordance with constitutional principles and applicable statutory law. A decision consistent with appropriate case law does not establish judicial misconduct, nor does a novel issue with no prior case law.

    Paragraph (d). Local grand juries report to a superior court judge, and the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) reports to the Supreme Court. Is there a governmental body that the SGJs will report to?

    Answer:  No.

    What is the role of the special nongovernmental advisor?

    Answer:  To counsel the SGJ if and when needed.

    How are they chosen?

    Answer:  They are chosen by interview by the SGJ.

    Are these advisors to be paid and how is that pay to be determined?

    Answer:  Yes, they shall be paid from SGJ operational budget in an amount mutually agreed to between the SGJ and advisor(s).

    Other than being nongovernmental, are there any minimum qualifications for these advisors?

    Answer:  Advisors shall demonstrate appropriate legal qualifications or other areas of expertise as needed by the SGJ at the time of interview.

    Paragraph (e).  Is it your intention that rents, staffing, compensation for special prosecutors and organizational infrastructure for the regional "seats" all be paid out of the operational budget for each SGJ?

    Answer:  Yes, with the exception of rents. See paragraph (e), "...the Legislature shall establish a 'seat' or principal base for each Special Grand Jury, ..." By so providing, the intent is to apply a rule of reason that the Legislature assign an appropriate non-judicial public facility.

    Paragraph (f).  Does the meaning of "exhaust all judicial remedies available" include a hearing before the CJP?

    Answer:  No.

    If a hearing before CJP is held and the judge is censured in some manner, does that preclude undertaking any investigation or action by the SGJs?

    Answer:  No, not necessarily.

    Do you intend that special writs in state courts or actions in federal courts be "exhausted" before consideration by the SGJ?

    Answer:  Writs in state courts, yes, if there is not available an adequate remedy at law. Actions in federal courts are beyond the purview of this proposition. (Going to the U.S. Supreme Court is only an option as it pertains to the exhaustion of state judicial remedies under Title 28 U.S.C. �1257.)

    Paragraph (g).  Is it your intent that law enforcement personnel include federal law enforcement personnel?

    Answer:  Yes.

    Do you intend that persons convicted of nonviolent felonies to be allowed to serve as special grand jurors?

    Answer:  Yes, presuming we are not talking about escapees, but those who have served their sentence and are legally functioning in society.

    Does this allow felons convicted of moral turpitude to serve?

    Answer:  Regarding "moral turpitude" see 7 Cal.Jur.3d �212 at p.600 and Note 71 thereunder. The principles of the prior answer would also apply here.

    The initiative states "[a] simple majority shall determine any matter."  Is it your intent that 13 votes are required for any 25 member SGJ to make findings, or a majority of all special grand jurors present at the time of the vote?

    Answer:  It is intended that "simple majority" equals 13 members.

    Paragraph (h).  Do you intend for there to be any consequences in cases where one of the parties (including the SGJ) does not [meet] the deadlines outlined in this paragraph?

    Answer:  Should the judge fail to timely answer, the SGJ shall proceed on the uncontested complaint. Should the complainant fail to reply to an answer, the right is waived. Consequences, as such, are not provided should the SGJ fail to take timely action; however, the rule of reason is that such failure shall not prejudice either party.

    Do you intend that extensions can be filed for and granted?

    Answer:  Normally, extensions shouldn't be needed, as the cases presented to the SGJ have already been briefed through the exhaustion process and nothing new is considered. However, should extenuating circumstances be shown similar to those established by existing statute, extensions should be considered under the rule of reason. (For example, "Too busy" is not an excuse.)

    Paragraph (j).  By excluding voir dire, do you intend that there can be no disqualifications of jurors for cause?

    Answer:  Applying the rule of reason, except for cases of physical impairment causing inability to comprehend the evidence and for family relationships, the answer is Yes, there can be no disqualifications for cause.

    Do you intend that special trial jurors be paid at the same rate as trial jurors?

    Answer:  Yes.

    Do you intend that they are paid from the operational budget of the SGJ?

     Answer:  No, it is a criminal proceeding in which the trial jurors are already being paid as in other criminal cases.

    What are your intentions regarding minimum qualifications for the special prosecutor?

    Answer:  The rule of reason is that the special prosecutor be a member of the California State Bar.

    Do you intend for there to be limitations or disqualifications as to conflicts of interest and issues of bias?

    Answer:  Yes.

    What is the intent for the role of the judge in these proceedings if the special trial jury has the power to judge both law and fact?

    Answer:  Referee

    Paragraph (o).  Should any part of this proposition come under constitutional challenge, is it your intent that no state judge would be able to adjudicate the matter?

    Answer:  Yes.

    Do you intend that a federal judge, or a judge from another state would adjudicate any challenge regarding the interaction of this initiative with the California Constitution?

    Answer:  We are unable to suggest what recourse an opponent might take. We rely upon Art. II, �1, of the California Constitution which provides: "All political power is inherent in the people.  Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require."  [emphasis added].

*  *  *

    In the interest of expediting this matter, these answers will be FAXed to you.

Sincerely,

    SUSAN KENNEDY

    GARY ZERMAN

    LEO MASTERS

    RON BRANSON

____________________________________________

Advisory Committee/The Judicial Reform Act of 1996   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------