RRR
IIICCCHHHAAARRRDDD
III...FFF
IIINNNEEE
ID # 1824367 c/o Men’s Central Jail441 BauchetStreet, Los Angeles, CA 90012RichardIFine@gmail.com
Via email andVia Certified Mail,Return Receipt RequestedSeptember 14, 2009Edmund G. Brown, Jr.Attorney General of CaliforniaCalifornia Department of Justice455 Golden Gate Avenue, Ste. 1100San Francisco, CA 94102RE:Formal Complaint Requesting Prosecution of Superior Court Judges, et alDear Sir: Please consider this a formal complaint requesting the prosecution of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe and the members of the LA County Board of Supervisors, in particular,and all other superior court judges and county supervisors who have, respectively, received andauthorized “benefits provided to a judge under official action of a governmental entity” for violationof the California Penal Code sections prohibiting “misappropriation of funds” (
§
424), “bribery” (
§§
92-94) and “obstruction of justice” (
§§
146(a) and 153), amongst others. Prosecution isalso soughtagainst all judges who have received any “supplemental benefit payments” from any county sinceMay 21, 2009, and all county officials who have authorized the appropriation of such payments.Request is further made for your office to seek to reopen any case that has been decided by or presided over by any judge who has received immunity for criminal acts under Senate Bill SBX2-11 or who has received payments from any county since May 21, 2009, due to the “integrity of the court”having been compromised by the judge having received such criminal payments from a county.
I.History
As you are aware, LA County Superior Court judges have been receiving supplemental paymentsfrom LA County, in addition to their state salaries and benefits, since the late 1980s.In October 2008, the California Court of Appeals decided the case of
Sturgeon v. County of LosAngeles
(167 Cal.App.4
th
630 (2008), review denied December 23, 2009).
Sturgeon
held that the“judicial benefits” paid by LA County to LA Superior Court judges was “compensation” and, as such,violated Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution. Such Article states in relevant part thatonly the state legislature can “prescribe” the compensation of the judges. The Court confirmed thatthis was a “non-delegable duty” which could not be undertaken by counties.
Add a Comment
joey-bananaleft a comment