EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM SPOKESMAN JIM EVANS IN THE 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 to protect our credibility as a news source, Full Disclosure Network prefers to credit the legal authorities who are presenting the opinions you provided here. If you are the one that prepared the answers to these questions and legal opinions, then we want to say so. Are you an attorney? If not, we would like to identify what legal authority you relied upon to provide the answers to the questions Was it the legislative counsel? The Judicial Council staff? I think our report would have great credibility if we quote the actual source of the opinion, in the absence of a formal opinion from the Attorney General. 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 is authorized 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 no need to apply it prospectively because the statute makes lawful that which everyone in the world thought was already legal before 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. Thank you Kind 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 important question that needs to be included. Is there any immunity covering present payments of supplemental benefits which occur under the first paragraph (Government Code Section 68220) commencing as of May 21, 2009, the effective date of SBX2 11? I have read that the immunity to be retroactive only and not applying to the present benefits because of the use of the words "prior to" the enactment date.

Thank you again and Kind Regards Leslie Dutton Full Disclosure Network 310-822-4449 ----- 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 to me. As “spokesman” – Jre

An enacted statute has the force of law regardless whether a particular 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 Senator Steinberg's office requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the missing immunity clause? If not, will you request the Attorney General to for such a determination so that the intent of this legislation is made public? No, such a request is unnecessary because the immunity clause was validly contained in the legislation. Also, attached is a copy of the California Appellate Court decision People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; it would be important to ask the the Attorney General's office for a determination (opinion) as to whether or not the embezzlement of public funds as described in this case under Pen. Code, § 424 and any other sections of the penal code are enforceable in the circumstances described in SBX2 11 in Sections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and California Judges. The citation you provided (54 Cal.App.3d 43) corresponds to the case of People v. Hames. The proper citation for the case of People v. Sperl is 54 Cal.App.3d 640. Regardless, it is unnecessary to seek an Attorney General opinion regarding criminal liability because the legislation expressly immunizes the government and others from prosecution under the narrow circumstances described in Section 5 of SBX2 11. Here are the questions regarding the background on this Legislation. Your prompt response to this media inquiry will be appreciated, as the answers are to be included in the series we are currently producing SBX2 11 and the Government Code:

1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included in the Government Code? Uncodified language is often used when it seeks to address an isolated and short-lived issue. The threat of litigation seeking to impose liability relating to locally provided judicial benefits is such an issue. 2) Can Immunity be conferred to the Judges and government officials without paragraphs 5,6,7 provision being included in the Government Code? Yes.

3) Where was the decision made to not include paragraphs 5,6,7 in the Government Code? By the Judical Council? In committee? On the Floor? At the Governor's desk? During the drafting process with the Office of Legislative Counsel. 5) Was the Governor aware, when he signed the legislation, that paragraphs 5,6,7 were not to be included in the Government Code? Was the Senator aware of this fact? You should direct questions about the Governor to his office. Senator Steinberg was aware of how the bill was drafted.

6) Did the Judicial Council intend the legislation to be passed without including those paragraphs in the Government Code?'' You should direct this question to the Judicial Council.

-----Original Message----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:58 AM To: Evans, Jim Subject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11 Thanks for the response. Leslie Dutton ----- Original Message ----From: Evans, Jim To: Leslie Dutton ; Trost, Alicia Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Hi Leslie, I’m working on the request. Thanks. Jim
-----Original Message----From: Leslie Dutton [mailto:ldutton@fulldisclosure.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:09 AM To: Trost, Alicia; Evans, Jim Cc: Dan Walters; Victoria Kim; Troy Anderson; Teri Whitcraft; tracy.kenny@jud.ca.gov Subject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11 Importance: High

Jim Evans Office of California Senator Daryl Steinberg: Alicia Trost has forwarded to you, our original media request (below) with specific questions, for a response. Your attention is appreciated, in a timely manner, as we are in production on our series covering Senate Bill SBX2 11 and need the background information requested here as soon as possible. First and foremost, is our interest in having a copy of an Attorney General opinion. We hope to hear from you as to whether you already have such an opinion and if not, when we could expect to obtain one. I look forward to hearing from you today. At the suggestion of Alicia Trost, we have also sent a copy of this request to Tracy Kenny of the Government Affairs Office at the California Judicial Council , who authored Senate Bill SBX2 11. Kind Regards, Leslie Dutton Full Disclosure Network 310-822-4449 ----- Original Message ----From: Trost, Alicia To: ldutton@fulldisclosure.net Cc: tracy.kenny@jud.ca.gov ; victoria.kim@latimes.com ; troy.anderson@dailynews.com ; teri.whitcraft@abc.com Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 7:32 AM Subject: Re: Questions Regarding SBX2 11 I have a morning flight today and will be out all week. I sent your email to my co-worker Jim.Evans@sen.ca.gov, I asked that he get back to you. He can be reached via email or the press unit 916-651-4188. -------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Leslie Dutton <ldutton@fulldisclosure.net> To: Trost, Alicia Cc: Tracy Kenny <tracy.kenny@jud.ca.gov>; Victoria Kim <victoria.kim@latimes.com>; Troy Anderson <troy.anderson@dailynews.com>; Teri Whitcraft <teri.whitcraft@abc.com> Sent: Tue Sep 15 14:25:43 2009 Subject: Questions Regarding SBX2 11

Alicia Trost

Press Deputy To Senator Daryl Steinberg, Dear Alicia Trost: The Full Disclosure Network is an Emmy Awarding winning public affairs cable television program based in Los Angeles. We are in production of a special series covering Judicial Benefits and Court Corruption. Specifically we need to know whether the adoption of the statute (Senate Bill SBX2 11), without being placed in the government code is sufficient to confer immunity on government officials and California Judges particularly for payments made after July 1, 2008 where immunity may not necessarily apply. As the Legislative Sponsor for this bill, has Senator Steinberg's office requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General regarding the missing immunity clause? If not, will you request the Attorney General to for such a determination so that the intent of this legislation is made public? Also, attached is a copy of the California Appellate Court decision People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; it would be important to ask the Attorney General's office for a determination (opinion) as to whether or not the embezzlement of public funds as described in this case under Pen. Code, § 424 and any other sections of the penal code are enforceable in the circumstances described in SBX2 11 in Sections 5,6,7 regarding government officials and California Judges. Here are the other questions regarding the background on this Legislation. Your prompt response to this media inquiry will be appreciated, as the answers are to be included in the series we are currently

producing SBX2 11 and the Government Code:

1) Why are paragraphs 5, 6, 7 not included in the Government Code? 2) Can Immunity be conferred to the Judges and government officials without paragraphs 5,6,7 provision being included in the Government Code? 3) Where was the decision made to not include paragraphs 5,6,7 in the Government Code? By the Judical Council? In committee? On the Floor? At the Governor's desk? 5) Was the Govenrnor aware, when he signed the legislation, that paragraphs 5,6,7 were not to be included in the Government Code? Was the Senator aware of this fact? 6) Did the Judicial Council intend the legislation to be passed without including those paragraphs in the Government Code?'' Leslie C . Dutton Producer Full Disclosure Network 337 Washington Blvd., #1 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 310-822-4449 cc: Teri Whitcraft ABC 20/20 Victoria Kim, L.A. Times Troy Anderson, Daily News Tracy Kenny, Judicial Council Govmt. Affairs

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful