Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11-04-13 Attempt to recover “not permitted” payments ("bribes") to Los Angeles County judges s

11-04-13 Attempt to recover “not permitted” payments ("bribes") to Los Angeles County judges s

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10|Likes:
For over a decade, Los Angeles County judges received “not permitted payments” (“bribes”), which required the signing of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) to all such judges.
For over a decade, Los Angeles County judges received “not permitted payments” (“bribes”), which required the signing of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) to all such judges.

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jun 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Human Rights Alert 
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
 
Blog:
 Scribd: 
11-04-13 Attempt to recover “not permitted” payments to Los Angeles County judges
For over a decade, Los Angeles County judges received “not permitted payments” (“bribes”), which required the signing of “retroactive immunities” (“pardons”) to all such judges.
“On October 10,2008, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, declared the County's payment of supplemental judicial benefits to be unconstitutional because the benefits had not been prescribed by theLegislature, as required by Cal. Const., art. VI, § 19.The County had paid supplemental judicial benefits to the trial judges of the superior court since at least asearlv as 1997. In the eleven year period from 1997 to 2008, the County paid an estimated $350 million dollarsin supplemental judicial benefits to approximately 1,000 superior court judges.”Section 26525 of the Government Code requires a district attorney to institute a lawsuit to recoverunlawfully paid county monies.Please consider this letter as notice of and a request to institute a lawsuit under Section 26525 of theGovernment Code to recover the illegal expenditure of County funds by county supervisors and othercounty officials, as declared by the Court of Appeal in
Sturgeon.”
 
Attached:# Date Record Page #
1. April 13, 2011 Letter by Judicial Watch to LA Coutny District Attorney
3
 
Related Records:
The underlying litigation of Sturgeon v LA County is opined as simulated litigation.
1. 11-01-03 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Court and Sturgeon v LA County (D056266) in the CaliforniaCourt of Appeals, 4th District - Opined as Elaborate Fraud on the California Courts-shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46230797/  2. 10-07-15 Complaint filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California against Justice James A Richman, Presiding JudgeCharles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke - for public corruption and deprivation of rights - in RE: Conduct of pretense litigation inSturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286)http://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/  3. 08-12-23 Cal Supreme Court Denies Hearing of Sturgeon v LA County-shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/32304285/  4. 09-07-28 to 30 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Correspondence Re Denial of Access to Court Records shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34403872/  5. 09-07-28 to 09-07-30 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) Correspondence w Deputy Clerk Drapac, Counsel Bennett re- denial of accessto court records shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30929197/  6. 09-07-28 to 09-07-30 Correspondence w Bennett Court Counsel Denial of Accesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30018079/  7. 09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #7- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part4 p295-306http://www.scribd.com/doc/34406023/  8. 09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #12- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6b p442-491http://www.scribd.com/doc/34407292/  9. 09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #9- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part4 p319-343http://www.scribd.com/doc/34406493/  10. 09-10-16 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286) Los Angeles Superior Court -Request for Presiding Judge McCoy - to AccessCourt Records to inspect and to copy shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34402043/  
Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik DN: cn=Joseph
 
Zernik, o, ou,email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=USDate: 2011.06.0702:17:18 +03'00'
 
Page 2/2 June 7, 2011
11. 10-02-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and Prospects of Future Honest Court Services in Los Angeles County, California shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/26576447/  12. 10-03-08 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) and alleged fraud in the online servers of the LA Superior Courthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/28049418/  13. 10-04-16 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400); Marina v La County (BS109420); Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737); Sturgeon v La County(BC351286) - Los Angeles Superior Court Microfilm Judgment Records March 4 2009http://www.scribd.com/doc/31305372/  14. 10-05-16 Marina v La County (BS109420) and Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) - Non-cases-Of Los Angeles Superior Court-shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31467632/  15. 10-07-15 Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286), Los Angeles Superior Court Online Case Summary (Not a Formal Court Record) shttp://www.scribd.com/doc/34389177/  16. 10-12-28 Sturgeon v Los Angeles County et al (D056266) in the California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Decision Affirming Judgment inSurgeon v LA County et al (BC351286) in the Los Angeles Superior Courthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/46227783/  
 
Judicial
Watcli
Becauseno
one
is
abovethe
law!
VIA
FACSIMILE
(213)974-1484ANDU.S.
MAIL
April13,2011TheHon.StevenCooleyLosAngelesCountyDistrictAttorneyDISTRICTATTORNEY'SOFFICECOUNTYOFLOSANGELES210WestTempleStreet,Suite18000LosAngeles,CA90012-3210
Re:District
Attorney's
Obligation
under
Government
CodeSection26525to
Institute
SuittoRecover
Moneypaid
to
JudgeswithoutAuthority
of
Law
DearMr.Cooley:JudicialWatch,Inc.,apublic-interestlawfirm,broughtsuitagainsttheCounty
of
LosAngelesin2006toendtheCounty'sillegalandunconstitutionalpractice
of
payingsupplementalbenefitstothetrialjudges
of
theSuperiorCourt
of
California,County
of
LosAngeles.OnOctober10,2008,theCourt
of
Appeal,FourthAppellateDistrict,declaredtheCounty'spayment
of
supplementaljudicialbenefitstobeunconstitutionalbecausethebenefitshadnotbeenprescribedbytheLegislature,asrequiredbyCal.Const.,art.VI,
§
19.
SeeSturgeon
v.
County
of
LosAngeles,
167Cal.App.4th639,84Cal.Rptr.
3d
242(Cal.App.2007).InDecember2008,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeclinedtoreviewtheCourt
of
Appeal'sruling.Acopy
of
theCourt
of
Appeal'srulingisenclosedasAttachment
A.
InFebruary2009,theLegislatureenactedSenateBillX211,Stat.2009,ch9,which,forthetimebeing,wasfoundtoprescribethebenefitssufficiently.
SeeSturgeon
v.
County
of
LosAngeles,
191
Cal.App.4th344,119Cal.Rptr.3d332(Cal.App.2011).TheCountyhadpaidsupplementaljudicialbenefitstothetrialjudges
of
thesuperiorcourtsinceatleastasearlvas1997.Intheele\'enyear
Deried
from1997to2008,the
County
'
-'
.
.
..
paidanestimated$350milliondollarsinsupplementaljudicialbenefitstoapproximately1,000superiorcourtjudges.
425ThirdSt.,
SW,
Suite800,Washington,DC20024Tel:(202)646-5172or1-888-593-8442
FAX:
(202)646-5199
G
Email:info@JudiciaIWatch.orgwww.JudicialWatch.org

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->