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, 2022 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, 2022 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, 2022 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, 2022 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, 2022 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, 2022 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, 2022 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. |
|
|