Los Angeles County and the conservative legal firm Judicial Watch are preparing to rumble in court again next month over whether L.A. judges should continue receiving an extra $46,000 in perks from the county’s coffers.
See why they won't go away, after the jump...
The county is expected to ask for summary judgment in Judicial Watch’s original Sturgeon case based on the new legislation, which authorizes counties to keep paying the benefits. Judicial Watch attorneys plan to seek summary judgment, too, saying the hastily crafted law is bogus and violates the Fourth District’s ruling outlawing the practice.
Among the group’s beefs: the legislation was adopted during an extraordinary session called by the governor to address the state’s budget mess, not judicial benefits.
“It doesn’t appear that that was included in the governor’s proclamation,” Judicial Watch attorney Paul Orfanedes said. “The Legislature only has authority to deal with issues in the proclamation.”
Orfanedes said the law might also violate the equal protection clause since it only authorizes benefits for judges in counties that paid them as of July 2008. Many counties do not offer extra perks to local judges, and no county is as generous as Los Angeles.
Aside from that legal issue, we’re still awaiting a ruling from Justice James Richman, sitting by assignment on the case, on whether the Los Angeles Superior Court as an entity can intervene in the case. That decision is expected before April 21, when the county is expected to file its briefs in the summary judgment battle.
— Cheryl Miller
As a result of challenging this matter, attorney Richard I. Fine has been jailed for contempt. Habeas pleadings to the Cal. Appellate and Supreme Courts were summarily denied. If you would like a copy of the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus that was submitted on behalf of Mr. Fine, please send an email to markfive (at) flash.net
Posted by: Mark W. Volovar | March 27, 2009 at 07:38 AM
Los Angeles County and LA superior cour judges are the most corrupted in the whole nation. It is very sad that the Justice system take side in cases against LA County.
Posted by: jack | April 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I presented evidence of judicial misconduct, to Van Nuys Superior Court, to refute testimony of a Police officer who planted words in my mouth to obtain a conviction for(criminal threats) to cover up his civil rights violations. The judge refused to adhere to the Code of Judicial Ethics and take remedial action, on crimes committed by other Van Nuys judges. I then made a citizens arrest of Judge Stoltz under P.C. sec. 96.5 and 18 U.S.C. sec. 241, who thereafter dismissed the case, which was refiled to include 12 new counts and 16 new sentence enhancements. I was sentenced to seven years after receiving consecutive prison sentences, based on misdemeanor (non-violent)jury instructions. (I had time served, by the 2 years I spent in County Jail).
The trial court directed the verdict, by refusing relevant jury instructions or allowing Stand-by counsel to take over. Had I been able to X-examine the original false witnesses and the jury compared their testimony with the new ringer false witnesses/victims brought in 13 months after the warrantless arrest in my home, I would have never been convicted.
The DDA was the daughter of a judge (Daniel Curry), who conspired to obstruct justice and protect his peers in a fraud on court matter, that occurred ex-parte in both the Court of Appeal (freeman v. Stewart title) and my W.C. case (I can neither enforce the award or set it aside, for being done ex-parte and after the forgery by Judge Cohn's business partner, Atty. Bernard Sobelsohn, due to the incapacitation of my workers comp attorney.
I was denied all review of my conviction because I sought review before the Fed Court.
The DAG said I filed Habeas too soon, then once I jumped though all the hoops, she said I was too late.
I have never seen any California judge adhere to their Code of Judicial Ethics, includig it's supreme court.
Posted by: Frank Knisley | April 14, 2009 at 06:40 PM
When will activism manifest itself by adopting a policy of voting out incumbents and voting for third party candidates? In my opinion, this is a reaction that would send the message of change, that is thrown around lately, well, like a hand full of loose change.
Posted by: Fred Sottile | June 02, 2009 at 08:36 AM