High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SPOKESMAN JIM EVANS INTHE OFFICE OF SENATOR PRO-TEM DARYL STEINBERG
-----Original Message-----
From:
Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net]
Sent:
Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:10 PM
To:
Evans, Jim
Subject:
Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Importance:
High
Jim: thank you for the response. Due to the technical legal nature of the questions and toprotect our credibility as a news source, Full DisclosureNetwork prefers to credit thelegal authorities who are presenting the opinions you provided here.If you are the onethat prepared theanswers to these questions andlegal opinions, then we want to sayso. Are you an attorney? If not, we would like to identify what legal authorityyou reliedupon to provide the answers to the questionsWas it the legislative counsel?TheJudicial Council staff? I think our report would have great credibility ifwequote theactual source of the opinion, in the absence of a formal opinion from the AttorneyGeneral.Thank you again.We will hold off till we get confirmation from you. Leslie
Hi Leslie,The answers are from the Pro Tem’s office. And I am the only person(aside from the Pro Tem himself and our press secretary) who isauthorized to speak for the Pro Tem. Thanks.Jre
-----Original Message -----
From:
Evans, Jim
To:
Leslie Dutton
Sent:
Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:46 PM
Subject:
RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Leslie, It’s fine to simply call me “spokesman.”As far as your latest question:The immunity clause applies retroactively only. There's noneed to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawfulthat which everyone in the world thought was already legalbefore the Sturgeon decision.Jre
PAGE TWO EMAIL CORRESPONENCE
-----Original Message-----
From:
Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net]
Sent:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:23 PM
To:
Evans, Jim
Subject:
Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Importance:
High
Thank you Jim, I also need your official title or postion for attribution.ThankyouKind regards,Leslie Dutton
-----Original Message-----
From:
Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net]
Sent:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:39 PM
To:
Evans, Jim
Subject:
Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Importance:
High
Thank you Jim for your prompt response,I left out an importantquestion that needs to be included.Is there any immunity covering present payments of supplementalbenefits which occur under the first paragraph (Government CodeSection 68220)commencing as of May 21, 2009, the effective date ofSBX2 11?I have read that the immunity to be retroactive only and not applying tothe present benefits because of the use of the words "prior to" theenactment date.Thank you again and Kind RegardsLeslie DuttonFull Disclosure Network310-822-4449-----Original Message -----
From:
Evans, Jim
To:
Leslie Dutton
Sent:
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:14 PM
Subject:
RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11
Leslie. See the responses. You can attribute tome. As “spokesman” –Jre
An enacted statute has the force of law regardless whether aparticular provision appears in a code book or not.(See e.g.
Reese v. Kizer
(1988), 46 Cal.3d 996, 999-1000.)
As the Legislative Sponsor for this bill,has SenatorSteinberg's office requesteda legal opinion from the AttorneyGeneral regarding the missing immunity clause? If not,
willyou request the Attorney General
to for such adeterminationso that the intent of this legislation is madepublic?
No, such a request is unnecessary because the immunity clausewas validly contained in the legislation.
Also,attached is a copy of the California Appellate CourtdecisionPeople v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43;it would beimportant to ask thetheAttorney General's officeforadetermination (opinion) as to whether or not theembezzlement of public funds as described in this case underPen. Code, § 424and any other sections of the penal codeare enforceable in the circumstances described inSBX2 11inSections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and CaliforniaJudges.
The citation you provided (54 Cal.App.3d 43) corresponds to thecase of
People v. Hames
.The proper citation for the case of
People v. Sperl
is 54 Cal.App.3d 640.Regardless, it isunnecessary to seek an Attorney General opinion regardingcriminal liability because the legislation expressly immunizes thegovernment and others from prosecution under the narrowcircumstances described in Section 5 of SBX2 11.
Here are thequestions regarding the background on thisLegislation.Your prompt response to this media inquiry willbe appreciated,as the answers are to be included in theseries we are currently producingSBX2 11 and theGovernment Code:1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included in theGovernment Code?
Uncodified language is often used when it seeks to address anisolated and short-lived issue.The threat of litigationseeking toimpose liability relating to locally provided judicial benefits issuch an issue.
2)Can Immunity be conferred to the Judges and governmentofficials without paragraphs 5,6,7 provision being included inthe Government Code?
Yes.
Add a Comment
joey-bananaleft a comment
joey-bananaleft a comment