Leslie DuttonFull Disclosure Network 337 Washington Blvd.Los Angeles, CA

Date 12/6/09

VERIFYING FELONY COUNT

Dear Leslie,I have checked the document you gave me on estimating the number of felonies committed by the County’s judiciary and County Supervisors andState’s judiciary. I have found the arithmetic absolutely correct. The reasoningis a model of clarity. Every estimate and assumption is given clearly and fairly,so that anyone who disagrees with the procedure can make a quick objection, both in uncovering what he considers an error and in explainingwhere the disagreement is. In fact, I will send this study around to the CountyDepartments as a template of what a fair and accurate accounting is. Everystep of the account is complete with an explanation of the reasoning behind itand a mention of the assumptions made where necessary. The use of theinformation given in Ronald George’s speech in estimating the state widefelonies is very clear and leads to a good approximation. The sources of thenumbers areeasily found from their clear citations. The last citation is a Statestudy of the Court system. It actually gives the number of State Judges andCommissioners on page 140 in table 12a. The estimate of judges. Apparentlythe author never saw these ﬁgures. But the estimate agrees closely with thenumber of judges given by the table and is off by about 20% for the

page 1 out of 6

Mathematics ConsultantProfessor Emeritus Daniel H. GottliebMathematics Consultant,3516 via DolceMarina del ReyCA 90292dhg7@mac.comhttp://www.math.purdue.edu/~gottlieb/

commissioners. Nevertheless, despite the ballpark ﬁgures given by JudgeGeorge’s speech, the author’s analysis looks more real than the precisenumbers in the overlooked table, which obviously used some sort of unexplained estimation procedure.I would like to send this report to the various County Departments and theSupervisors as an example of what a clear accounting looks like, as opposedto what is given in County EIRs and County trafﬁc studies, development rightstransfer accounting, slip sizing studies, and parking studies as well as debristransport studies. Let me know if that is OK.I will write comments on the report below.Sincerely,Daniel H. Gottlieb

page 2 out of 6

FELONY REPORTWikipedia reports that there are presently 431 judges in LA County, and140 Commissioners.571 LA Judges / Commissioners receiving paymentsx 12 Payments per year 6,852x 22 Number of years (since early 1988)150,744x 6 Number of persons involved per payment(1 recipient, 5 supervisors authorizing each)904,464x 3 Number of crimes per payment (bribery,misappropriation of funds, obstruction of justice2,713,392 Almost

. THREE . MILLION . FELONIES . ... just in LA County.

At his State of the Judiciary speech in September 2009, Ronald Georgementioned that there are “more than 1600” California judges who’ve agreedto the one-day-per-month salary waiver (and they had about a 98% sign-uprate on that) during the budget “crisis”. Therefore, there are approx. 1,632 judges in California.If the same ratio of judges to commissioners in LA County applies acrossthe state (33%), we have a total of about 528 commissioners in the state.Now we must subtract the judges and commissioners in San FranciscoCounty, Mendocino County, and Yolo County who’ve never received anypayments. The 2009 Court Statistics Report (pg 42) states that there are atotal of 92 judges and commissioners in those counties. (70 judges andcommissionersreported for San Francisco County seems awfully low.)http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/csr2009.pdf

page 3 out of 6

The analysis here is superb.In fact it may be more

accurate

than the

precise

ﬁgureof 1,614.0 given in table 12a onpage 140, (computer page156/159), in the link below. Moreaccurate because the Judicialreport uses an undisclosedmethod of counting partial judgeswhich is why there is a a pointzero at the end of 1,At the level of approximationin this report, the assumption of constant amount of judges peryear seems reasonable.This assumes that the numberof judges/commisionersremained constant. In fact the judges state-wide increased by50 from 2007 to 2008, thoughthey were not funded.This correctly quotes thecitation.This agrees with Wikipedia andalmost agrees with Table 12b inthe Judicial Council’s reportlinked below. 572 instead of 571What do these crimes consistof? I will give deﬁnitions in theCONCLUSION below.Yes, this seems suspicious,even more so since the number of judges is 5 less then is reportedin table 12a on page 140,computer page 156/159This citation means the linkedone below. It is on computer page58/159